|
On September 20 2011 09:09 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:00 Kiarip wrote:
aren't the rich people the ones that can just get up and leave though?
If you tax them too much they can go live somewhere else where they would get taxed less. so do they have assets in the US you tax them then they cannot fully just not do business in the US it's too large of a market, we shouldn't be having a race to the bottom because then if taken to infinity we just let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as wealth of small group become large and the wealth of the minority becomes small all it takes is one large hardship and shit like the French revolution occur.
well how is taking the opposite to the infinity any better?
|
On September 20 2011 08:11 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:47 Sadist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:45 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:42 Sadist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Problem is investors and wall street don't make anything. They contribute nothing to society aside from using the system itself to make money from money. They don't produce goods or anything of the like. You could argue they invest money that drives business but that is simply because of their abuse of the system we have. Investment banking is slimier than just about any other profession out there. I don't get it, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph? How do you think small business thrive? They abuse the system we have. Bankers should not be making more than doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Its disgusting. They don't make anything. Do they deserve $50 million for managing a 2 billion dollar account? Absofuckinglutely no. HEY BUDDY GUESS WHAT THE WORLD BLOWS. They're not doing anything wrong just because they want to make money. Not to mention how ignorant you are in regard to what banks/bankers and investments/investors contribute to society. Sure, a doctor may save hundreds of lives in their lifetime, but you have absolutely no fucking clue how many lives an increased standard of living can save. And are you really going to try and decode what causes the US to have such a ridiculously high standard of living and likewise a low poverty rate? REALLY? YOU?? Yeah... let's just give YOU total control. You can distribute the money however you think is "fair" and we'll see how things go... moron.
You are the one talking about "fairness"
I think its not "fair" that someone who is a leech to society and simply makes money off of others money and produces nothing of good makes more than doctors, engineers, scientists.
The bankers themselves don't directly raise the standard of living of others. They raise the standard of living for themselves. While the rest of the country suffers the banking/investment industry is making a mint.
Its disgusting.
|
On September 20 2011 09:11 Falling wrote:
I'm talking about fairness because you keep talking about what people deserve, what people have earned. Which seems to be an argument for fairness. It certainly isn't the more realpolitik, what is the most practical way to raise funds.
Are taxes to you inherently evil? I asked this before but are you a Austrian School of Economics guy or Anarcho-Capitalist. The state is inherently bad? Because when it comes to who earns or deserves this or that any wage earner, deserves their money. Rich or Poor. They made it, according to this argument they deserve it. If the argument is on deserving and fairness, then we can never tax ever. But if the state is necessary (even if it's a necessary evil) and it costs money, then money needs to be raised either through indirect or direct means.
Furthermore, taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is not an argument against progressive taxes, but an argument against a social safety net, specifically welfare which is one of the few places where money literally goes from wage earners to non-wage earners. In almost other cases, taxes, rich or poor go to pay for infrastructure and services that both use to varying degrees (roads, hospitals, law enforcement, military.) This not going from rich to poor. That's when the practicals kicks in. Who can foot the bill- well sales tax is spread evenly, but can't cover everything, tariffs can hurt trade, so income tax became necessary during the world wars. But then it turns out, the rich can foot a greater bill then the poor. In fact you can even tax rebate the poorest bracket back and it won't make a difference to the budget because the poor makes so little. But note, this is the poor's money going back to the poor. Not the rich going to the poor. I make 7K at a low paying summer job, go to uni and get $6-800 back at the end of the financial year. Just pennies as far as the government is concerned.
Edit
And I'm starting to push into quasi-theological discussions because the root cause of the disagreement is based on an ideology, which if not discussed leaves us at an impasse. "It's immoral" vs "It's not a moral matter, tax where the money is"
In addition, I've yet to see anyone except you suggest the rich are always evil and slimy.
If you take more from one person than the other in order to recieve the same (if not LESS!) service, that's essentially the same thing as taking from the richer and giving it to the poorer of the two people. Without the guy with the cash, the guy without would have to pay for whatever services he's receiving. It IS the same thing. If the rich all left the country and took their money with them, the poor would lose access to every government service.
I don't believe taxes are inherently evil because, like I've already said, the government provides necessary services. I've made it very clear that my problem is that the rich pay out a larger SHARE of their larger amount of money. The onus is on you to explain why more of their money is being taken for the same service... not on me to get into an convoluted argument with you about where fairness stems from.
|
On September 20 2011 09:26 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:11 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:47 Sadist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:45 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:42 Sadist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Problem is investors and wall street don't make anything. They contribute nothing to society aside from using the system itself to make money from money. They don't produce goods or anything of the like. You could argue they invest money that drives business but that is simply because of their abuse of the system we have. Investment banking is slimier than just about any other profession out there. I don't get it, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph? How do you think small business thrive? They abuse the system we have. Bankers should not be making more than doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Its disgusting. They don't make anything. Do they deserve $50 million for managing a 2 billion dollar account? Absofuckinglutely no. HEY BUDDY GUESS WHAT THE WORLD BLOWS. They're not doing anything wrong just because they want to make money. Not to mention how ignorant you are in regard to what banks/bankers and investments/investors contribute to society. Sure, a doctor may save hundreds of lives in their lifetime, but you have absolutely no fucking clue how many lives an increased standard of living can save. And are you really going to try and decode what causes the US to have such a ridiculously high standard of living and likewise a low poverty rate? REALLY? YOU?? Yeah... let's just give YOU total control. You can distribute the money however you think is "fair" and we'll see how things go... moron. You are the one talking about "fairness" I think its not "fair" that someone who is a leech to society and simply makes money off of others money and produces nothing of good makes more than doctors, engineers, scientists. The bankers themselves don't directly raise the standard of living of others. They raise the standard of living for themselves. While the rest of the country suffers the banking/investment industry is making a mint. Its disgusting.
you're dumb and know nothing. You're wrong in at LEAST one way. The most obvious is that, like I said, the world blows. There are injustices in capitalism, as there are in every system. However, capitalism yields the greatest results in terms of economic prosperity. In fact, capitalism takes the bad in people and turns it into good. Read the wealth of nations.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 20 2011 08:29 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:24 Falling wrote:
Well only if you invest 1 billion into one enterprize alone. What's more realistic is it's much easier to lose $10M or $100M. But that's why being wealthy makes it easier to gain more wealth, you have deeper pockets, you can survive a failed business venture, ride out a bad economy and so on and so forth.
But if everything comes down to what is moral, I think the next question that would be reasonable is where does that morality come from? Is it absolute or relative and why should we follow it? Because moralness is a matter "You ought to... or ought not to..." So then given that we can choose to or not, what is our standard and what is our compulsion? Yeah and it's also more realistic that you're only gonna make like $10k instead of $1m. Seriously dude? come on, this is a waste of time. Having money doesn't necessarily raise your EV when investing, it just changes the amounts, in BOTH columns. Well, I personally believe that morality comes from God. But I don't expect other people to agree with me and I also don't expect our laws to directly come from the Bible. I'm a complete minimalist. I think the most moral thing to do is to stay out of people's lives as much as possible... from a government's standpoint.
I dont think that Morality and God have any place in this discussion. I cant believe youre arguing your case against progressive tax brackets using Morality as your support base. You say its immoral to take money from someone and give it to someone else. Isnt it also immoral to leave the needy to suffer and die even when it is within your power to help them? Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt Jesus advocate giving to those who need when they ask?
If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother
If you argue that it should be left to the individual to give his wealth away, why isnt it up to the individuals running the government to use their power to uphold the Morality of God? By taxing the rich more than taxing the poor, the ones running this country are actually being more Moral than those withholding their wealth from the poor. Right?
Basically, forget everything I said earlier and everything you have said about Morality. If you think that letting the rich improves our economy because it allows them to invest and expand businesses more rapidly or whatever other rational reason you have, go ahead and argue that. However, trying to bring in Morals to this discussion is pointless because Morality is subjective.
On September 20 2011 08:25 Holophonist wrote:
I'm not going to read through 40 pages of idiocy. Especially considering the fact that I've NEVER heard a good argument for it and I doubt I'm going to find it on a sc2 forum.
Oh and dont be that guy...Youre here having a meaningful discussion and youre gonna suggest that people on an SC2 forum cant possibly have the intelligence and/or knowledge to argue with you properly just because youre mad that people disagree with you? Ugh
|
On September 20 2011 09:09 Holophonist wrote:
I don't think anybody has properly answered my original question... my entire reason for being in this thread. How can you support the government taking more money from one person to give to another? If you think they've done something illegal, arrest them. If they took advantage of some loophole, fix it. Don't try to mend things with the income tax. Also, I would point out that when they take advantage of "loopholes", they are usually just bringing their tax rate down to a similar level as everybody else... which doesn't seem as evil or slimy as people like to suggest.
Your question is very unclear, you seem to be questioning taxation as a concept.
You mention that the loopholes should be fixed, but immediately after say that we should fix income tax.
The issue here is about letting the Bush II tax cuts expire to put capital gains taxes back to what they were in the 90's, you know those years where the economy was actually good. Was life back in the 90's so hard because of all that evil "redistribution of wealth"? You're sounding like an anarchist.
|
On September 20 2011 09:28 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:11 Falling wrote:
I'm talking about fairness because you keep talking about what people deserve, what people have earned. Which seems to be an argument for fairness. It certainly isn't the more realpolitik, what is the most practical way to raise funds.
Are taxes to you inherently evil? I asked this before but are you a Austrian School of Economics guy or Anarcho-Capitalist. The state is inherently bad? Because when it comes to who earns or deserves this or that any wage earner, deserves their money. Rich or Poor. They made it, according to this argument they deserve it. If the argument is on deserving and fairness, then we can never tax ever. But if the state is necessary (even if it's a necessary evil) and it costs money, then money needs to be raised either through indirect or direct means.
Furthermore, taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is not an argument against progressive taxes, but an argument against a social safety net, specifically welfare which is one of the few places where money literally goes from wage earners to non-wage earners. In almost other cases, taxes, rich or poor go to pay for infrastructure and services that both use to varying degrees (roads, hospitals, law enforcement, military.) This not going from rich to poor. That's when the practicals kicks in. Who can foot the bill- well sales tax is spread evenly, but can't cover everything, tariffs can hurt trade, so income tax became necessary during the world wars. But then it turns out, the rich can foot a greater bill then the poor. In fact you can even tax rebate the poorest bracket back and it won't make a difference to the budget because the poor makes so little. But note, this is the poor's money going back to the poor. Not the rich going to the poor. I make 7K at a low paying summer job, go to uni and get $6-800 back at the end of the financial year. Just pennies as far as the government is concerned.
Edit
And I'm starting to push into quasi-theological discussions because the root cause of the disagreement is based on an ideology, which if not discussed leaves us at an impasse. "It's immoral" vs "It's not a moral matter, tax where the money is"
In addition, I've yet to see anyone except you suggest the rich are always evil and slimy. If you take more from one person than the other in order to recieve the same (if not LESS!) service, that's essentially the same thing as taking from the richer and giving it to the poorer of the two people. Without the guy with the cash, the guy without would have to pay for whatever services he's receiving. It IS the same thing. If the rich all left the country and took their money with them, the poor would lose access to every government service. I don't believe taxes are inherently evil because, like I've already said, the government provides necessary services. I've made it very clear that my problem is that the rich pay out a larger SHARE of their larger amount of money. The onus is on you to explain why more of their money is being taken for the same service... not on me to get into an convoluted argument with you about where fairness stems from.
Why should those with more pay more?
Simple they have more because the work off the backs of others, does say the owner of a large corporation do more work then any one of its workers? If so is that work so deserving of such higher pay? What about those who's job is to just take other people's money so call invest in things in the hopes that they can make money money off other people hard work and because the footed the initial bills they did work?
And do they use the same service who benefits the most from the legal system? who benefits the most from police? from roads? The poor would still be poor road or no road, how would the rich move their stuff around without roads? government workers, they work for the government the government is their source of income, shit they owe a lot to it they should have all their income taxed!
ie your assumption that everyone is paying for a service called government and are beating treated and using it exactly equally is not true.
|
On September 20 2011 09:34 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:09 Holophonist wrote:
I don't think anybody has properly answered my original question... my entire reason for being in this thread. How can you support the government taking more money from one person to give to another? If you think they've done something illegal, arrest them. If they took advantage of some loophole, fix it. Don't try to mend things with the income tax. Also, I would point out that when they take advantage of "loopholes", they are usually just bringing their tax rate down to a similar level as everybody else... which doesn't seem as evil or slimy as people like to suggest. Your question is very unclear, you seem to be questioning taxation as a concept. You mention that the loopholes should be fixed, but immediately after say that we should fix income tax. The issue here is about letting the Bush II tax cuts expire to put capital gains taxes back to what they were in the 90's, you know those years where the economy was actually good. Was life back in the 90's so hard because of all that evil "redistribution of wealth"? You're sounding like an anarchist.
Why is it ok for the rich to pay out a larger share of their income than the poor?
|
Canada11349 Posts
And that's where we reach the impasse.
Our answer to why more of their money is being taken for the same service is because they actually have money. To which you reply that's immoral. Then we ask, why is it's immoral? Because it's unfair. Then we say it's not about fairness, it's about a realistic consideration of where the money is.
I said it before and I'll say it again. In the interests of fairness, you can tax all the way down the grade one's lunch money, but you won't get very much. So why bother? We value giving the poor a few tax benefits to make it a little easier for them and there's little money to be had.
We essentially do not care for your value, so why should we care? There's no way to argue because we're arguing from two entirely set of assumptions. I don't agree with your ideology and I see no reason why I need to explain the tax code based on it. You won't explain why your ideology is relevant, but want us to argue based on your set of presuppositions.
Edit
And it certainly is not equivalent of the rich giving money to the poor as though law enforcement is some welfare program, depositing straight into the poor's bank accounts. The money goes to a third party run by the government for the benefit of both.
|
On September 20 2011 09:36 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:28 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:11 Falling wrote:
I'm talking about fairness because you keep talking about what people deserve, what people have earned. Which seems to be an argument for fairness. It certainly isn't the more realpolitik, what is the most practical way to raise funds.
Are taxes to you inherently evil? I asked this before but are you a Austrian School of Economics guy or Anarcho-Capitalist. The state is inherently bad? Because when it comes to who earns or deserves this or that any wage earner, deserves their money. Rich or Poor. They made it, according to this argument they deserve it. If the argument is on deserving and fairness, then we can never tax ever. But if the state is necessary (even if it's a necessary evil) and it costs money, then money needs to be raised either through indirect or direct means.
Furthermore, taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is not an argument against progressive taxes, but an argument against a social safety net, specifically welfare which is one of the few places where money literally goes from wage earners to non-wage earners. In almost other cases, taxes, rich or poor go to pay for infrastructure and services that both use to varying degrees (roads, hospitals, law enforcement, military.) This not going from rich to poor. That's when the practicals kicks in. Who can foot the bill- well sales tax is spread evenly, but can't cover everything, tariffs can hurt trade, so income tax became necessary during the world wars. But then it turns out, the rich can foot a greater bill then the poor. In fact you can even tax rebate the poorest bracket back and it won't make a difference to the budget because the poor makes so little. But note, this is the poor's money going back to the poor. Not the rich going to the poor. I make 7K at a low paying summer job, go to uni and get $6-800 back at the end of the financial year. Just pennies as far as the government is concerned.
Edit
And I'm starting to push into quasi-theological discussions because the root cause of the disagreement is based on an ideology, which if not discussed leaves us at an impasse. "It's immoral" vs "It's not a moral matter, tax where the money is"
In addition, I've yet to see anyone except you suggest the rich are always evil and slimy. If you take more from one person than the other in order to recieve the same (if not LESS!) service, that's essentially the same thing as taking from the richer and giving it to the poorer of the two people. Without the guy with the cash, the guy without would have to pay for whatever services he's receiving. It IS the same thing. If the rich all left the country and took their money with them, the poor would lose access to every government service. I don't believe taxes are inherently evil because, like I've already said, the government provides necessary services. I've made it very clear that my problem is that the rich pay out a larger SHARE of their larger amount of money. The onus is on you to explain why more of their money is being taken for the same service... not on me to get into an convoluted argument with you about where fairness stems from. Why should those with more pay more? Simple they have more because the work off the backs of others, does say the owner of a large corporation do more work then any one of its workers? If so is that work so deserving of such higher pay? What about those who's job is to just take other people's money so call invest in things in the hopes that they can make money money off other people hard work and because the footed the initial bills they did work? And do they use the same service who benefits the most from the legal system? who benefits the most from police? from roads? The poor would still be poor road or no road, how would the rich move their stuff around without roads? government workers, they work for the government the government is their source of income, shit they owe a lot to it they should have all their income taxed! ie your assumption that everyone is paying for a service called government and are beating treated and using it exactly equally is not true.
Are you implying that anybody on the assembly line could run the company? Or that there isn't a level of ingenuity and personal risk in putting up your own money in a small business because you think it can succeed?
And I'm not implying that no rich person uses more of the services/handouts than any poor person. I'm saying that you can't tax an entire group of people based on assumptions about a few of them.
|
On September 20 2011 09:36 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:34 BuddhaMonk wrote:On September 20 2011 09:09 Holophonist wrote:
I don't think anybody has properly answered my original question... my entire reason for being in this thread. How can you support the government taking more money from one person to give to another? If you think they've done something illegal, arrest them. If they took advantage of some loophole, fix it. Don't try to mend things with the income tax. Also, I would point out that when they take advantage of "loopholes", they are usually just bringing their tax rate down to a similar level as everybody else... which doesn't seem as evil or slimy as people like to suggest. Your question is very unclear, you seem to be questioning taxation as a concept. You mention that the loopholes should be fixed, but immediately after say that we should fix income tax. The issue here is about letting the Bush II tax cuts expire to put capital gains taxes back to what they were in the 90's, you know those years where the economy was actually good. Was life back in the 90's so hard because of all that evil "redistribution of wealth"? You're sounding like an anarchist. Why is it ok for the rich to pay out a larger share of their income than the poor?
You don't even know what you're fighting for or against. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire increases capital gains tax equally for everyone, everyone pays the same rate! You need to actually learn about the issues, don't just argue with talking points against something you don't understand.
|
On September 20 2011 09:36 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:34 BuddhaMonk wrote:On September 20 2011 09:09 Holophonist wrote:
I don't think anybody has properly answered my original question... my entire reason for being in this thread. How can you support the government taking more money from one person to give to another? If you think they've done something illegal, arrest them. If they took advantage of some loophole, fix it. Don't try to mend things with the income tax. Also, I would point out that when they take advantage of "loopholes", they are usually just bringing their tax rate down to a similar level as everybody else... which doesn't seem as evil or slimy as people like to suggest. Your question is very unclear, you seem to be questioning taxation as a concept. You mention that the loopholes should be fixed, but immediately after say that we should fix income tax. The issue here is about letting the Bush II tax cuts expire to put capital gains taxes back to what they were in the 90's, you know those years where the economy was actually good. Was life back in the 90's so hard because of all that evil "redistribution of wealth"? You're sounding like an anarchist. Why is it ok for the rich to pay out a larger share of their income than the poor?
Because the standard of living is not based on percentage of income. Those with more money can afford to pay out more taxes while still living a comfortable life. Those with little money cannot afford to pay a large amount of their income without giving up key essentials. Forcing the poor into worse conditions by either cutting back government programs or taxing them more could lead to less overall consumption in the country, which leads to less growth from businesses looking to make sales. It could also increase crime rates due to desperation.
If you were talking about why is it ok from a moral standpoint, refer to my post like half way up this page
|
On September 20 2011 09:31 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:29 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:24 Falling wrote:
Well only if you invest 1 billion into one enterprize alone. What's more realistic is it's much easier to lose $10M or $100M. But that's why being wealthy makes it easier to gain more wealth, you have deeper pockets, you can survive a failed business venture, ride out a bad economy and so on and so forth.
But if everything comes down to what is moral, I think the next question that would be reasonable is where does that morality come from? Is it absolute or relative and why should we follow it? Because moralness is a matter "You ought to... or ought not to..." So then given that we can choose to or not, what is our standard and what is our compulsion? Yeah and it's also more realistic that you're only gonna make like $10k instead of $1m. Seriously dude? come on, this is a waste of time. Having money doesn't necessarily raise your EV when investing, it just changes the amounts, in BOTH columns. Well, I personally believe that morality comes from God. But I don't expect other people to agree with me and I also don't expect our laws to directly come from the Bible. I'm a complete minimalist. I think the most moral thing to do is to stay out of people's lives as much as possible... from a government's standpoint. I dont think that Morality and God have any place in this discussion. I cant believe youre arguing your case against progressive tax brackets using Morality as your support base. You say its immoral to take money from someone and give it to someone else. Isnt it also immoral to leave the needy to suffer and die even when it is within your power to help them? Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt Jesus advocate giving to those who need when they ask? Show nested quote +If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother If you argue that it should be left to the individual to give his wealth away, why isnt it up to the individuals running the government to use their power to uphold the Morality of God? By taxing the rich more than taxing the poor, the ones running this country are actually being more Moral than those withholding their wealth from the poor. Right? Basically, forget everything I said earlier and everything you have said about Morality. If you think that letting the rich improves our economy because it allows them to invest and expand businesses more rapidly or whatever other rational reason you have, go ahead and argue that. However, trying to bring in Morals to this discussion is pointless because Morality is subjective. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:25 Holophonist wrote:
I'm not going to read through 40 pages of idiocy. Especially considering the fact that I've NEVER heard a good argument for it and I doubt I'm going to find it on a sc2 forum. Oh and dont be that guy...Youre here having a meaningful discussion and youre gonna suggest that people on an SC2 forum cant possibly have the intelligence and/or knowledge to argue with you properly just because youre mad that people disagree with you? Ugh
I'l answer your last point first: STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH HYPERBOLE. I didn't say we can't possibly have the intelligence to figure this stuff out. What I actually said was I doubt I'd find it on a SC2 forum. I'd say 80% of what I've written here over the past couple hours is stuff like this. I have to explain myself when I really shouldn't.
The terrible inconsistency in your suggestion that the people in power are using their "power" to do what's right is that they're using other people's faculties/resources, not their own.
total. waste. of. time.
|
good on him. I hope obama's new bill goes through without any shenanigans from the republicans
|
On September 20 2011 09:41 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:36 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:34 BuddhaMonk wrote:On September 20 2011 09:09 Holophonist wrote:
I don't think anybody has properly answered my original question... my entire reason for being in this thread. How can you support the government taking more money from one person to give to another? If you think they've done something illegal, arrest them. If they took advantage of some loophole, fix it. Don't try to mend things with the income tax. Also, I would point out that when they take advantage of "loopholes", they are usually just bringing their tax rate down to a similar level as everybody else... which doesn't seem as evil or slimy as people like to suggest. Your question is very unclear, you seem to be questioning taxation as a concept. You mention that the loopholes should be fixed, but immediately after say that we should fix income tax. The issue here is about letting the Bush II tax cuts expire to put capital gains taxes back to what they were in the 90's, you know those years where the economy was actually good. Was life back in the 90's so hard because of all that evil "redistribution of wealth"? You're sounding like an anarchist. Why is it ok for the rich to pay out a larger share of their income than the poor? You don't even know what you're fighting for or against. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire increases capital gains tax equally for everyone, everyone pays the same rate! You need to actually learn about the issues, don't just argue with talking points against something you don't understand.
I know exactly what I'm fighting for. You're trying to put words in my mouth and trying to force me into arguments I'm not interested in joining. I never even mentioned the bush tax cuts before you started jabbering on.
|
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing
|
On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff.
Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad.
The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument.
Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute.
The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything.
No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic.
No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people.
When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education.
|
On September 20 2011 09:43 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:31 Supamang wrote:On September 20 2011 08:29 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:24 Falling wrote:
Well only if you invest 1 billion into one enterprize alone. What's more realistic is it's much easier to lose $10M or $100M. But that's why being wealthy makes it easier to gain more wealth, you have deeper pockets, you can survive a failed business venture, ride out a bad economy and so on and so forth.
But if everything comes down to what is moral, I think the next question that would be reasonable is where does that morality come from? Is it absolute or relative and why should we follow it? Because moralness is a matter "You ought to... or ought not to..." So then given that we can choose to or not, what is our standard and what is our compulsion? Yeah and it's also more realistic that you're only gonna make like $10k instead of $1m. Seriously dude? come on, this is a waste of time. Having money doesn't necessarily raise your EV when investing, it just changes the amounts, in BOTH columns. Well, I personally believe that morality comes from God. But I don't expect other people to agree with me and I also don't expect our laws to directly come from the Bible. I'm a complete minimalist. I think the most moral thing to do is to stay out of people's lives as much as possible... from a government's standpoint. I dont think that Morality and God have any place in this discussion. I cant believe youre arguing your case against progressive tax brackets using Morality as your support base. You say its immoral to take money from someone and give it to someone else. Isnt it also immoral to leave the needy to suffer and die even when it is within your power to help them? Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt Jesus advocate giving to those who need when they ask? If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother If you argue that it should be left to the individual to give his wealth away, why isnt it up to the individuals running the government to use their power to uphold the Morality of God? By taxing the rich more than taxing the poor, the ones running this country are actually being more Moral than those withholding their wealth from the poor. Right? Basically, forget everything I said earlier and everything you have said about Morality. If you think that letting the rich improves our economy because it allows them to invest and expand businesses more rapidly or whatever other rational reason you have, go ahead and argue that. However, trying to bring in Morals to this discussion is pointless because Morality is subjective. On September 20 2011 08:25 Holophonist wrote:
I'm not going to read through 40 pages of idiocy. Especially considering the fact that I've NEVER heard a good argument for it and I doubt I'm going to find it on a sc2 forum. Oh and dont be that guy...Youre here having a meaningful discussion and youre gonna suggest that people on an SC2 forum cant possibly have the intelligence and/or knowledge to argue with you properly just because youre mad that people disagree with you? Ugh I'l answer your last point first: STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH HYPERBOLE. I didn't say we can't possibly have the intelligence to figure this stuff out. What I actually said was I doubt I'd find it on a SC2 forum. I'd say 80% of what I've written here over the past couple hours is stuff like this. I have to explain myself when I really shouldn't. The terrible inconsistency in your suggestion that the people in power are using their "power" to do what's right is that they're using other people's faculties/resources, not their own. total. waste. of. time.
You completely ignored the core of my post LOL. I was saying that its a double standard for you to argue using morals as a base when the people you are defending are being immoral by not giving out their wealth. Basically, Im saying its useless to argue using morals as your support because there are so many standards for morality (even within God) that youre bound to look like a hypocrite
its not a "total.waste.of.time", but youre obviously only saying that because youre angry at not having a good argument against me. So you target my afterthought and argue against that for the majority of your post instead of the actual meat of my original argument. You also say that this thread is "40 pages of idiocy" and say that you wont find a good argument on an SC2 forum. How is that NOT suggesting that those on TL.net lack the intelligence to argue against you?
Lol, Im not the one slinging around inconsistency, you are.
|
On September 20 2011 09:45 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:41 BuddhaMonk wrote:On September 20 2011 09:36 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:34 BuddhaMonk wrote:On September 20 2011 09:09 Holophonist wrote:
I don't think anybody has properly answered my original question... my entire reason for being in this thread. How can you support the government taking more money from one person to give to another? If you think they've done something illegal, arrest them. If they took advantage of some loophole, fix it. Don't try to mend things with the income tax. Also, I would point out that when they take advantage of "loopholes", they are usually just bringing their tax rate down to a similar level as everybody else... which doesn't seem as evil or slimy as people like to suggest. Your question is very unclear, you seem to be questioning taxation as a concept. You mention that the loopholes should be fixed, but immediately after say that we should fix income tax. The issue here is about letting the Bush II tax cuts expire to put capital gains taxes back to what they were in the 90's, you know those years where the economy was actually good. Was life back in the 90's so hard because of all that evil "redistribution of wealth"? You're sounding like an anarchist. Why is it ok for the rich to pay out a larger share of their income than the poor? You don't even know what you're fighting for or against. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire increases capital gains tax equally for everyone, everyone pays the same rate! You need to actually learn about the issues, don't just argue with talking points against something you don't understand. I know exactly what I'm fighting for. You're trying to put words in my mouth and trying to force me into arguments I'm not interested in joining. I never even mentioned the bush tax cuts before you started jabbering on.
You were the one who responded to my post about the Bush tax cuts.
The corner-stone of Obama's jobs plan, and the point of the article by Warren Buffet was in relation to the Bush tax cuts which lowered the capital gains tax. Nothing could be more relevant to this thread's discussion.
|
On September 20 2011 09:36 Falling wrote:
And that's where we reach the impasse.
Our answer to why more of their money is being taken for the same service is because they actually have money. To which you reply that's immoral. Then we ask, why is it's immoral? Because it's unfair. Then we say it's not about fairness, it's about a realistic consideration of where the money is.
I said it before and I'll say it again. In the interests of fairness, you can tax all the way down the grade one's lunch money, but you won't get very much. So why bother? We value giving the poor a few tax benefits to make it a little easier for them and there's little money to be had.
We essentially do not care for your value, so why should we care? There's no way to argue because we're arguing from two entirely set of assumptions. I don't agree with your ideology and I see no reason why I need to explain the tax code based on it. You won't explain why your ideology is relevant, but want us to argue based on your set of presuppositions.
Edit
And it certainly is not equivalent of the rich giving money to the poor as though law enforcement is some welfare program, depositing straight into the poor's bank accounts. The money goes to a third party run by the government for the benefit of both.
Like I said, the onus is on all of you to explain yourselves for implementing the system... or rather defending the people who did. You are the one who has to explain why your unfairness should be accepted.
But I'll bite anyway. You say it's a realistic considering of where the money is. You say that as if spending doesn't even come into the picture. You assume we NEED the tax revenue, and therefore we have to take it from the only people who HAVE any money. But the fact is we don't need more revenue, we need less spending. Part of my reason for wanting lower taxes for the rich is so the government reigns itself in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
