44
   

Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 08:06 am
@parados,


It is a fact - research it and learn something.

Unbalanced
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 09:09 am
@H2O MAN,
That doesn't support your statement at all spurt..

This is what the study that article was based on says spurt..
Quote:
These regressions should be viewed as correlations,
Quote:
As for
fiscal adjustments those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are
more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon
tax increases.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 09:11 am
@parados,
But the funniest part about that study spurt is..
Did you know that there was no tax increase in the 1990s according to Alberto Alesina?

That's right. Clinton never raised taxes according to Alesina's version of the surplus achieved by the end of Clinton's term.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 10:46 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

Nations economies have a much better chance of recovery when
they cut taxes and reduce government spending... that's a fact.

That isn't a fact at all spurt.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times and failed to reduce spending.
Are you arguing that Reagan was a failed President and the economy did terrible under him?
What is really good is unlimited foreign markets, and a domestic market that is in good shape... To compete with the slaves American Capital has made abroad, and to be able to sell into the domestic market flooded with imports, the wages of the working people has been forced lower than snake **** so they can afford neither to pay taxes, or buy their own products... The people are driven to rely on credit for even the most basic commodities, and government denied revenue must also rely on credit from the very people who say they cannot afford higher taxes... At some point, and we may be there, the people and the government for the people is bled white with interest... It is no longer a question of debasing the currency or priming the pump... None of the actions works as stimulants if the people have no jobs, and with a job, have no wages worth taxing... This hole has been dug as a grave for the capitalist class... We have no market for our goods... We are no market for our own goods... The working people cannot support government which does not support them no matter howm much is given to them.... The rich will not pay taxes by choice even though they are the only ones served by the government....There are a million ways to say it; but the government and the economy does not work... The government is not allowed to work for the people, and capitalism as an economy cannot work...
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 10:47 am
I don't know if this thought has been broached in this thread, since I skimmed much of the preceding pages, but shouldn't this thread's original question have the context of what would any extra revenue, from taxes, be used for? The inference is, I believe amongst those socially minded folks that would like the rich to be taxed at a greater rate, that the revenues would be used for having a more equitable society relative to one's wealth.

However, I think there are wealthy that might not mind additional taxes, if the purpose of the extra revenues were to enhance the country's international political strength, meaning having the revenues allocated to the military, whether in weapon systems, or better living conditions for military personnel.

I base my premise on the belief that not all of the "have-nots" might utilize any social free-bee's adequately (a scholarship could also go for a "party school," rather than a school known for academic achievers). And, also there is the question, amongst some, as to whether all of the"have-nots" of society "deserve" a big brother to help them out of the morass of a possible self-defeating culture? In our politically correct/charitable culture the belief that, since we were all born equal, we might all deserve equal, could be a very false premise.

Perhaps, there should be criteria as to which wealthy get taxed more? That might be a disincentive to generate wealth. So, the whole question could be deeper than first thought?

Personally, I do seem to see a sometimes correlation between not having and poor behavior. So, if additional tax revenues went to the have nots, I am not sure that society would truly benefit. We have not resolved the argument between nature and nurture. This thread's question might be premature by a few decades, until we figure out where the extra revenues would go, and whether that is good for society and the country.
IRFRANK
 
  4  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 11:17 am
@Foofie,
Wow, I find all of this rather revealing. I wonder what social class you consider yourself to be in.

Don't we already spend 45% of the countries revenue on defense? Does that necessarily enhance our countries international political strength?

You talk about these 'have-nots' as a different breed of human. Aren't they really a continuoum on people just like us that may have made a mistake along the way or simply haven't had the same opportunity. Not all of us were born on 3rd base, or 1st or even had a turn at bat. I wonder what type of person you picture when you use the term 'have not'

The thing all of the people who are asking for less government are going to realize if it truly does happen is how much of that government spending is really spent on things they use and take for granted every day. All of us, not just the have-nots.

It's really so easy to identify some other 'group' and associate all of our problems with them. What that does is let us avoid solving the real problems that affect us all.

I don't necessarily want an 'equitable' society. I don't want us all to live in the same luxury. Certainly working harder and smarter should provide an enhanced standard of living. But does that mean we shouldn't show compassion and assistance to those less fortunate, whether through their fault or not.
mysteryman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 11:20 am
bm for now. Will return in a bit to comment.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 11:30 am


Poor pitiful Parasite can't read.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 01:46 pm
@Fido,

Quote:
Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The salient point to be made
is that financially successful people have NO moral duty
to render assistance to the financially less fortunate.

Additionally, the 16th Amendment does NOT authorize discrimination
against the wealthy, based upon their financial success.





David
Fido wrote:
Shove it where your brain should be...
I don 't take advice from ADMITTED mental defectives,
but if I change my mind on that point, I 'll be sure to start with U.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 02:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
By the way when had the SC rule that a progressive tax rate in unconstitutional or is this a ruling that is about to came down from the same court that just rule that corporations even foreign corporations can throw as must money into US elections as they might wish to?

Or for that matter the court who had ruled that eminent domain allow the rich to seize private property for their own uses as long as they can pay a local government to act for them.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  5  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 03:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The salient point to be made
is that financially successful people have NO moral duty
to render assistance to the financially less fortunate.

Rich people wouldn't be rich if the rest of us didn't recognize their possessions as rightful property. Why do we have a moral obligation to recognize them unconditionally? Why shouldn't there rather be an exchange of moral obligations? ("We accept a moral duty to recognize your property rights. In return, you accept a moral duty to let the public tax your property and regulate its use for the general welfare". )

OmSigDavid wrote:
Additionally, the 16th Amendment does NOT authorize discrimination
against the wealthy, based upon their financial success.

It also doesn't say that progressive taxation discriminates against the rich. That's your personal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, unsupported by the text of the US constitution or the Supreme Court's case law.
Fido
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 08:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Quote:
Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The salient point to be made
is that financially successful people have NO moral duty
to render assistance to the financially less fortunate.

Additionally, the 16th Amendment does NOT authorize discrimination
against the wealthy, based upon their financial success.





David
Fido wrote:
Shove it where your brain should be...
I don 't take advice from ADMITTED mental defectives,
but if I change my mind on that point, I 'll be sure to start with U.





David
What mind??? I am just being kind to tell you, you are worse off than I ever was and should get it checked..
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 08:39 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
The salient point to be made
is that financially successful people have NO moral duty
to render assistance to the financially less fortunate.

Rich people wouldn't be rich if the rest of us didn't recognize their possessions as rightful property. Why do we have a moral obligation to recognize them unconditionally? Why shouldn't there rather be an exchange of moral obligations? ("We accept a moral duty to recognize your property rights. In return, you accept a moral duty to let the public tax your property and regulate its use for the general welfare". )

OmSigDavid wrote:
Additionally, the 16th Amendment does NOT authorize discrimination
against the wealthy, based upon their financial success.

It also doesn't say that progressive taxation discriminates against the rich. That's your personal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, unsupported by the text of the US constitution or the Supreme Court's case law.
ditto
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 09:09 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Poor pitiful Parasite can't read.

The problem is I CAN read spurt..
It means that when other's misrepresent studies, I can point out they are doing so. Too bad you can't read.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2011 10:47 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Rich people wouldn't be rich if the rest of us didn't recognize their possessions as rightful property. Why do we have a moral obligation to recognize them unconditionally? Why shouldn't there rather be an exchange of moral obligations? ("We accept a moral duty to recognize your property rights. In return, you accept a moral duty to let the public tax your property and regulate its use for the general welfare". )

Indeed. It should be remembered that it was the arch-reactionary Otto von Bismarck who planted the seeds of the modern welfare state by convincing the rich that it was in their self-interest to grant a paternalistic social welfare system from above rather than risk a revolutionary system that might be imposed upon them from below.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 07:30 am
@joefromchicago,
It seems the rich need to be reminded of that now and again
Israeli protesters demand end to staggering wealth gap
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 08:21 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Rich people wouldn't be rich if the rest of us didn't recognize their possessions as rightful property. Why do we have a moral obligation to recognize them unconditionally? Why shouldn't there rather be an exchange of moral obligations? ("We accept a moral duty to recognize your property rights. In return, you accept a moral duty to let the public tax your property and regulate its use for the general welfare". )

Indeed. It should be remembered that it was the arch-reactionary Otto von Bismarck who planted the seeds of the modern welfare state by convincing the rich that it was in their self-interest to grant a paternalistic social welfare system from above rather than risk a revolutionary system that might be imposed upon them from below.
When you can see how the paternalistic socialism of the Kaisar led to the organization of Germany for two world wars it is enough to give up on both parternalism or socialism....

In regard to property it should remembered that property is just a social form, and all forms are forms of relationship... It should also be remembered that while people with property like to act like they own it free and clear without obligation to the state, that we have already been shown since the days of the Romans and of Feudalism, that property relationships are always in flux... What the rich an powerful want, they take, and do so legally because they own the law... This is what heppened when they closed the commons, but it has also happened with the closing of the commonwealth in this country through privatization... Still, even if the commonwealth is privatized it must still support the population...
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 08:32 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
When you can see how the paternalistic socialism of the Kaisar led to the organization of Germany for two world wars it is enough to give up on both parternalism or socialism....

It was Kaiser Wilhelm II's paternalistic nationalism, not his paternalistic socialism, that set Germany up for that. Think of the Kaiser as a monarchistic companion to Teddy Roosevelt. Do you think the Spanish-American war had anything to do with Roosevelt's trust-busting?

Alternatively, if the Kaiser you had in mind is Wilhelm I, you're totally off the mark. Wilhelm I basically let Bismarck run the country. And Bismarck's foreign policy was marked by exceptionally competent diplomacy, not by war-mongering.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 11:00 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

You talk about these 'have-nots' as a different breed of human. Aren't they really a continuoum on people just like us that may have made a mistake along the way or simply haven't had the same opportunity. Not all of us were born on 3rd base, or 1st or even had a turn at bat. I wonder what type of person you picture when you use the term 'have not'



I believe that the largest percentage of "have nots" have subscribed to a culture that does not emphasize "doing one's homework diligently." They may have been born into that culture, and chose not to leave it. Hang out; cut class; cut school.

Naturally, some cannot leave such a culture without the condemnation of one's peers, who might think one is "putting on airs," so to speak. O.K. So, let us not "put airs" on the underclass, and allow them to "sleep in the bed they made," so to speak.

I believe the underclass deserves food, health services, and a roof over their head. After that, I believe, it is all up to them. We still have not decided, as a society, whether there are genes that make one stupid or smart. So, if it is really nature, and not nurture, let us not "throw good money after bad," so to speak. When we find out that it is nurture, and not nature to any great degree, I'll listen to a different view.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 11:36 am
@Foofie,
So if it's nature then the rich are rich because they are granted that by God. Why even have democracy then when we can have divine rights of Kings.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:07:08