No wonder Joe the Plumber Is worried About Taxes

Foxfyre wrote:

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

That certainly seems to have been its function for, say, the last 30 years. Government deregulates the credit card industry so that its citizens can become so burdened by debt that they are working, more or less, for the banks. Government, through its tax code, encourages middle class individuals to invest their savings in the market, where people who don't have day jobs have plenty of time to figure out how to manipulate themselves gross profits using our money. Government discourages small business enterprise both by burdensome regulation and complicated tax code, and by making it advantageous for people to be employed by large companies so that we can have tax deductible health insurance (which some of us still can't afford) and sick time. Government has been in the pocket of special interests for decades, so believe me, rich and/or successful people are not the slaves in your analogy. You and I are. The super rich made monstrous profits and brought down our economy and guess who is going to pay for it. That's right: you and me. There is nothing wrong with asking them to pay up and I don't think any of these false scenarios that pit hardworking person A against sloth person B are going to be very believable this go around when everyone knows we are really talking about persons C: the guy with 10 cars and houses in Europe and D: the rest of us.

And one more thing, there is nothing moral about advocating for very expensive endeavors, like the Iraq war and a 700 billion dollar bailout, and balking at paying the taxes required to pay for it. We pay now or our children pay. Personally, I prefer to pay it myself and die broke than to pass that burden on to my children and their generation.

The Queen Bee is the wrong analogy. It should be about contributions for the company in which they work, and rewarded accordingly. The way it works today is that CEOs gets paid way over their worth even when they run the company into the ground (bankruptcy), and they walk away with golden parachutes. That is simply wrong not only in common sense terms but ethically.

Just answer the question Cyclop and then we can address a different scenario. But if you can't answer that very simple question, then the chances of arriving at anything even slightly cmplicated are quite remote.

Citizen C who dishonestly, illegally, or unethically acquired his wealth did not factor into my analogy and it is inappropriate to include him in this discussion.

But let's try one more time.

Citizen A stayed in school and educated himself, he stayed away from illegal activities, he waited until he was married and could afford children before starting a family, he put in his time at Mcjobs while acquiring a work ethic, skill sets, and references, and then got himself out of bed every morning, went to work, did his job as well as he could, and prospered.

Citizen B didn't do any of that and now he is poor and disadvantaged.

On this criteria alone, how is it moral or ethical for the government to forcibly take wealth from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Punishment for success? What a bunch of crap. How do you square that, with the fact that the rich, even after paying high levels of taxes, are still rich? Nobody is being 'punished' for success, Brandon. Those who are successful still enjoy lives of luxury and comfort compared to those who are not as successful, even under higher tax rates.

You have a funny definition of 'punishment,' for sure. Heaven forbid that I make it to a higher tax bracket - I'd be punished for doing so! Idiocy.

Cycloptichorn

The fact that they're still rich is hardly the criterion for fairness. If, hypothetically, I take nothing from anyone below the ten million dollars a year level, but 50% from those above it, the latter would still be rich, but it's hardly fair. Equal protection can't mean different things for different people.

ABC News Journalist just asked, "Why are we vetting Joe the Plumber? He's already done more interviews than Sarah Palin."

I am one of the American people and I can find no justification for you to have the ability to take what I have lawfully earned and use if for your own personal benefit.