No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

And for your "fairness" doctrine, what exactly are you trying to tell us?

Graduated means un-equal.

So Cyclo, you have yet to offer a moral justification for it, but you seem to be saying that you support the government doing whatever the government wants to do just because it can?

(You want a good example of liberal extremism folks? There it is in a nutshell.)

I resemble that remark.

The IRS should be disbanded - install a flat tax - get rid of loopholes. Huge savings.

Foxfyre wrote:

So Cyclo, you have yet to offer a moral justification for it, but you seem to be saying that you support the government doing whatever the government wants to do just because it can?

(You want a good example of liberal extremism folks? There it is in a nutshell.)

I did offer a moral justification for it: the people of America determined long ago that a graduated taxation scheme is the appropriate one for our country. This was an eminently moral decision on the part of our citizens. This decision has stood the test of time and our system of taxation is one of the longest-running one's in the world without major change.

The government of America is the embodiment of the will of the people. I support the US continuing to run itself in this fashion, yes. It's not just 'because it can.' We tax our citizens in order to keep our nation running in a viable fashion. Some can afford to pay more, so we charge them more. There's nothing inherently unfair about that at all - you just represent the side of greedy bastards who don't want to pay a cent more than you have to.

Cycloptichorn

So the question remains:

Citizen A educated himself, stayed away from illegal activities, paid his dues by developing a work ethic and learning a trade so that he could earn a living, waited until he could support a family and got married before having kids, got up in the morning and went to work and did his job honorably and well and he prospered.

Citizen A may decide to voluntarily help out Citizen B as the morally right thing to do.

But what is the moral justification for the government to forcibly take Citizen A's property and give it to Citizen B who did none of that?

It's because you keep repeating undefensible claims about unfairness.

While the production of American workers increased, they did not benefit from working harder or producing more. Most of the benefit went to the CEO's while the average joe's pay remained stagnant - and not even keeping up with inflation.

That is not only unfair but unethical. The CEOs enriched themselves based on greed, and forgot to reward the people who actually produced the products and services.

That the same CEOs should pay a higher tax rate is based on that simple fairness doctrine. That you are unable to see the inequities between the salaries of CEOs (pay packages, stock options, and golden parachutes) and those production workers is a consequence of your ignorance.

Greed is their only excuse. What's your's?

Quote:

Graduated means un-equal.

No, it does not mean un-equal. All are subject to the same graduated scale. As our incomes go up and down over time, we may find ourselves in a different place on the taxation scale; but everyone is treated fairly by the same system.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Graduated means un-equal.

No, it does not mean un-equal. All are subject to the same graduated scale. As our incomes go up and down over time, we may find ourselves in a different place on the taxation scale; but everyone is treated fairly by the same system.

Cycloptichorn

If there's one thing America stands for, or should stand for, it's treating different categories of people equally, with the single exception of special help for hardship cases, which I do support. The fact that people may move from category to category, doesn't (to me) justify treating different income levels in a grossly different manner. Even with your explanation, it still smacks of punishing people for success. When I vote, I will always vote against policies like that.

Quote:

So the question remains:

Citizen A educated himself, stayed away from illegal activities, paid his dues by developing a work ethic and learning a trade so that he could earn a living, waited until he could support a family and got married before having kids, got up in the morning and went to work and did his job honorably and well and he prospered.

Citizen A may decide to voluntarily help out Citizen B as the morally right thing to do.

But what is the moral justification for the government to forcibly take Citizen A's property and give it to Citizen B who did none of that?

The moral justification: that the country requires taxes from all its' citizens in order to keep functioning. Some citizens live right around the poverty line, and they pay little to no taxes; this does not remove the responsibility of those who live far, far better lives, to pay the taxes necessary to support the country. If you believe in, and support, your country, then you have a responsibility to pay taxation to do so.

This isn't a difficult concept, Fox. You and your bunch talk all the time about Patriotism, but when it comes to paying money to support the country? You're quickly revealed for the false patriots you are. You support the country, but only up until the point that the country asks money from you. Then you become tight-fisted. What a crock.

I find your arguments on this subject to be tendentious in nature and quite boring, Fox. Nothing really new here. You are merely repeating the same exact Republican argument against taxation which we all have seen, for years. But you know that the system isn't going to change, so at the end of the day, this conversation is quite useless.

Cycloptichorn

So the function of government is to effectively use one citizen as slave labor for the benefit of another?

Cyclo is a student at Berzerkely with little or no income. He likely pays no taxes, and thus, shouldn't be allowed to vote, IMHO.