1
   

Democrats, Communists?

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:33 am
Mwa ha ha. My little plan is succeeding...

Instigate wrote:
Quote:
For example, let me point out that in this country (and probably every other) there is no correlation between hard work and wealth.


So a man that flips burgers for 50 hours a week is not likely to have more wealth than the man that flips 'em for 30 hours? Would you say that a man that works 50 hours/week works harder than a man that works 30 hours/week? Have you failed to consider ingenuity and invention?

You can argue your assertion on an individual basis only. The "general rule" which you have presented it as is false.


I would say in the case you mention that neither burger flipper is wealthy and that there is no amount of waking hours a burger flipper could work that would make him so. And no, I haven't failed to consider ingenuity and invention because folks who strike it rich with such are the exception and not the rule.

Quote:
Quote:
People who are in the upper class echelons enjoy myriad benefits other than just their wealth and power. Therefore they should accept their portion of responsibility.


They already shoulder most of the burden.



How so?

Quote:
There is no logical or moral justification for a progressive taxation system. It doesnt bring in more money than a flat tax would. Its only purpose is to screw the people that have money.


A flat tax is regressive in that it harms those on the lower end of the pay scale more than those on the upper. Its only purpose is to punish people for not being wealthy.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm going to show my pinko colors and quote someone I can't remember who said "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." That may or may not be true right now, but there was a time when it was probably the rule


Can you provide evidence of this, or are you just echoing unproven Socialist maxims designed to vilify rich people? If it werent such a pervasive attitude, it would be funny that you people have to justify your confiscatory taxes by calling people criminals.


I was thinking specifically of the industrial age here in the US and folks like Jay Gould specifically. But I could give examples throughout history and from different countries. Slavery was a great crime that made many a plantation owner rich. I could probably make the argument about contemporary fortunes made off of Enron and Worldcom and others, but that's not really my point. My point is that implying that people are in the positions they are in solely on the basis of merit is demonstrably false -- and that goes for both the rich and the poor. Then there is the majority of us, those of us in the middle that are carrying the weight of both other sectors.

Quote:
The obvious disparity in wealth among individuals doesnt fit well into the leftist Theory of Human Equality. This little problem is solved by your declaration above which, conversely, serves to bestow victim status upon poor people.

A clever trick to say the least.


Hmmm. I don't know the Theory of Human Equality -- seems you know more about that than I do -- so I'm not sure what the clever trick is. What I do know is that we are all affected by our neighbors. I don't believe that everyone has to be, or even can be, equal. But I do believe that if we neglect whole segments of the population, tell ourselves they are poor because they want to be poor or are too lazy to work, that will not make the problem go away. You can't just flush them down the toilet. We have to make sure that everyone has a minimum standard of living if we want to protect our own private property. There is, indeed there has to be, a balance between "damn the poor" and "screw the rich".

Quote:
Just remember JazzFreak: You're no better than anybody else, private property is just an fancy, outdated concept and if you dont pay higher taxes your children may beaten, your house robbed and your car stolen.


Hmmm. Methinks maybe you're responding to an imaginary communist rather than my post, which was intended to be thought provoking and not an argument for progressive taxation or against private property. Nevertheless, good to at least have some opinions.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:35 am
Jazzfreak,

just keep the thread going, eventually some will turn up!

Back to topic: I think the "American Dream" is so essential to the American society that few people ever realize that they can work as hard as they want, they will never become "rich".
When I say rich I mean something like: millionaire.

Granted, the possibility exists. Okay, you might invent something, start up a business and become a millionaire. But I don't think that you can refer to those people as "the common American entrepeneur". Otherwise, the USA would be a country of millionaires, wouldn't it?

I think so many people focus on that almost non-existent possibility (you know, when I'm gonna be rich) that they defend things like tax cuts for the top 1% without realizing that they will never, ever profit from something like that. Neither will their children, or grandchildren.

That doesn't mean that I love paying taxes - I don't. I'd rather keep the money. But I can see the benefits in a system were I don't have to pay if I want to go to university, for example. After all, it should be a matter of being smart enough, not of being rich enough. Right?

Same concept can be applied for many things.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:39 am
Jazzfreak13 wrote:
That wasn't fair. If they are nice people I don't see any reason why not to like them. I am also not refering to millions of Americans when I say hard working and rich. I am refering to the common American entrepenuer that works hard to start a business or invent some great gadget or even strive to be the greatest he can be at what he does. These people work incredibly hard and can still make a few million dollars over several years. Life is not fair to these people and even if they are small scale they deserve rights too. I do see where everyone is comming from but can't we get any republicans in here?


Okeydoke. I see what you have in mind. But when you say "life is not fair to these people" what do you mean?

I would say that I believe that the deck is stacked against the small businessperson from many different angles. But I'm not sure that is because of the democrats in Congress or elsewhere or because of the level of taxes. I think a lot of it has to do with the complexity of the tax system and the regulations that apply to small businesses. A lot of this complexity is due to the different levels of government. A new business has to figure out how much to pay the feds, the state, and the local municipalites and when. This is not usually an easy thing to figure out. However, by the time a business person has figured that out and made his fortune he is no longer at a disadvantage.

The problem I see is the immense barrier to entry for working folks to become independent business owners.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:47 am
FreeDuck, that's a good point, of course. Still, I somehow doubt that even a relatively successful small businessperson can make a few million dollars over several years.
I know several people who own a small business in the US. Still, I don't think they will ever make "a few million dollars".
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:51 am
Jazzfreak13 wrote:
...... Life is not fair to these people and even if they are small scale they deserve rights too. I do see where everyone is comming from but can't we get any republicans in here?


Please explain how "life is not fair" to these folks? And, what rights do they not have that you feel they should have?

Clearly a poor man has opportunity in this country to become wealthy -- certainly to improve his station. The chances they will become wealthy aren't good, because it is decidedly more difficult to do so when you have limited resources, but with luck, hard work, and good planning, it certainly is possible. The opportunity is there for everyone -- there is no "immense barrier" to becoming a business owner. That being said, it is obvious that most people won't take advantage of the opportunities that exist.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 09:54 am
Some folks confuse "Equal Opportunity" with "Equal Result". Mostly, them folks is folks either disinclined to make the effort to avail themselves of opportunity, or incompetent to do so.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 10:53 am
That may be true, timber. But having an opportunity and knowing you have an opportunity don't always come together.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:02 am
A basic law of nature is that opportunity is where ya find it. Yer unlikely to find it if ya don't look for it. Ignorance of the law is no defense under law.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:05 am
But we're not talking about the law. There could be a gold mine under your house, but if you don't know it's there, you're not going to get rich. Well, then it's your fault you're not rich, isn't it, because you should have just dug under your house. That's all you had to do. But you didn't.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:09 am
You've almost got it Mr. Green Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:15 am
You can buy them books ... but you can't make them read.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:18 am
Or better, don't buy books for folks unless they know how to read.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:20 am
.. and if they can't read ... blame the government.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:21 am
Progressive taxes just redistribute market forces, anyway.

If we had a flat tax, then wages would not be so disproportionate. You'd have to pay more to a hamburger flipper, 'cause he's still gonna want his take home pay. CEO would make less, 'cause the government would be taking less out of her wallet.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:23 am
If they can't read, and the government provided for their education, who should you blame?

Crikey, this really is all about blame isn't it? Why can't this just be an objective look at the economic and social problems of the country and ways to solve them? It's always so "why should I have to pay for you". If you were trying to help someone by giving them books, and they couldn't read, does it makes sense to teach them to read, or is it better to wash your hands of them and absolve yourself because it's their own fault that you can't help them?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:42 am
FreeDuck wrote:
If they can't read, and the government provided for their education, who should you blame?


Their parents. My son could read before he attended public school.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:44 am
DrewDad wrote:
If we had a flat tax, then wages would not be so disproportionate. You'd have to pay more to a hamburger flipper, 'cause he's still gonna want his take home pay. CEO would make less, 'cause the government would be taking less out of her wallet.


DD, do you really think that would happen?

After all, a hamburger flipper and a CEO are in a quite different position.

If a hamburger flipper couldn't make a living any more, wouldn't he just be told to stop complaining or find another McJob?

And if a CEO had left more money than he has now, would he really go "Aw, shucks, I really don't need that much. Actually, keep those additional millions , I have enough money already."

Don't get me wrong: a flat tax sounds just. And if circumstances for everybody would be the same, it would be just.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:54 am
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
If they can't read, and the government provided for their education, who should you blame?


Their parents. My son could read before he attended public school.


And if their parents can't read?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:57 am
A suggestion I've heard before, but am not actually supporting:

Make overtime tax free.

Would go a long way to reward hard work without messing with the progressivity. I've not really thought about it though, and I'm sure there would be a ton of complications.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 12:00 pm
That's an interesting idea. Also, noting what DrewDad said, I hadn't thought of it like that before. That's a good point.
0 Replies
 
 

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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 08:13:21