Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

[Berzerker]

As a society the strong need to look after the weak

Hmm...by forcing the "strong" to look after the "weak". If you can accomplish this, you're the strong one, not the ones being forced.

[mrmitchell]

I thought we were talking about fairness, not who can afford what. Who are you to say that a "rich" person can afford something?

This has probably already been answered, but I skipped the thread to answer it. Unless the "rich" person is a complete and utter idiot, yes, he should be able to afford basic living.

[Giant_Squid]

Isn't it at least as fair and probably more so to tax by the actual effect rather than numerical value? If we tax poor people at 50%, that's going to mean a massive reduction in living standards and happiness for them and their family, while taxing a rich person at 50% results in much less of an effect, even a proportional effect.

And David, I like reason as much as anyone else, but the emotional argument that this would result in poor children starving so that rich people could get a third private jet is still a real argument that can't be run away from. If I have to put it in philosophojargon before you accept it, it would result in a loss of utility from the poor people much greater than that from the rich person, and thus from a utilitarian system is unjust. Fairness is a very vague concept, and I would call that poor person starving significantly more unfair than the rich person having to pay a numerically higher value.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't support getting rich through fraud. That argument doesn't work. If you defraud me, you should go to jail.

Well there is a large amount of corruption amoung the rich, to be ULTRA-rich it is a gate to entry. Deal with the facts and the world how it is, not some unrealistic utopia-do you really expect goverment efficiency to increase?

I'm sure they do, and this hard work is a good start towards future prosperity

No, anyone who is in a crappy minimum wage job working their ass off will more likley stay there, working their lives away in a crappy job, while some rich corrupt pig profits off it doing no work.




Success does NOT equal "worthiness" as there are WAY to many factors besides "how hard you work"........ I'd say luck is one hell of a big factor. Just because you are succesfull does not mean you are automatically more "worthy"........ deriving your ultra-wealth from the poor while ignoring/opressing them is unquestionably immoral. If you think its okay, then its fairly obvious your motivations are greed and little else.



So you want someone who is working a 80 hour week working his ass off, to pay more, enough that he cant afford to feed himself, as opposed to an Enron CEO not being able to buy three ivory toiler roll containers this week?


No im not a communist, but if it isnt obvious I think taxing the rich more heavily is a good idea.

[DanS]

Spoken like a true facist, you'd do Adolf Hitler proud.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Rather, it is more like a force of nature. You can use it to help you or you can ignore it. But you ignore them at your own peril.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Sikander


It costs everyone money when you vote. It must be nice to be so cocksure of yourself that you feel that you know better than everyone else how their money should be spent, Commisar.

I do what I FEEL is right, I may well be wrong, I can only cast my vote. if you and your concience (or lack thereof) are reconciled then maybe youre as 'cocksure' as you make me out to be

[Berzerker]

I just hope you never find yourself on the sh1tty end of a right wing taxation system

There wouldn't be forced taxation if we had a true right wing system. Guess what, the poor wouldn't pay taxes like they do under your ideology, so pulling that old "I'm more compassionate than you" routine doesn't wash.

Spoken like a true facist, you'd do Adolf Hitler proud.

Whoohoo, got any other gems to enlighten us? Dan S stated a simple reality - government exists to perpetuate government. How is that fascistic?

[Vesayen]

It's facist because he is saying goverment perpetuation is more important, the GOAL of the goverment, and more important then its citizenry.

[reds4ever]

Berzerker,

I'm not getting sanctimonious, I've been on both sides of the fence, and it's nice to know I havn't changed my ideals just because the money has started coming in

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Vesayen

Well there is a large amount of corruption amoung the rich, to be ULTRA-rich it is a gate to entry. Deal with the facts and the world how it is, not some unrealistic utopia-do you really expect goverment efficiency to increase?

No, anyone who is in a crappy minimum wage job working their ass off will more likley stay there, working their lives away in a crappy job, while some rich corrupt pig profits off it doing no work.

Success does NOT equal "worthiness" as there are WAY to many factors besides "how hard you work"........ I'd say luck is one hell of a big factor. Just because you are succesfull does not mean you are automatically more "worthy"........ deriving your ultra-wealth from the poor while ignoring/opressing them is unquestionably immoral. If you think its okay, then its fairly obvious your motivations are greed and little else.

So you want someone who is working a 80 hour week working his ass off, to pay more, enough that he cant afford to feed himself, as opposed to an Enron CEO not being able to buy three ivory toiler roll containers this week?


No im not a communist, but if it isnt obvious I think taxing the rich more heavily is a good idea.

Firstly, I feel that large thefts and frauds should be punished much more severely than they are and enough resources should be allocated to make white collar criminals sweat continuously. I'd say 5 years in jail for every million dollars stolen, automatic life in prison without parole for stealing 10 million, and the death penalty for stealing 25 million plus.

Secondly, the U.S. taxed the crap out of the rich during the 20th century. It made everyone poorer. Amusingly the rich are their own worst enemies when it comes to holding on to their money. Their fvcked up kids can destroy the largest of fortunes within a generation or two, with very few exceptions.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Sikander
Firstly, I feel that large thefts and frauds should be punished much more severely than they are and enough resources should be allocated to make white collar criminals sweat continuously. I'd say 5 years in jail for every million dollars stolen, automatic life in prison without parole for stealing 10 million, and the death penalty for stealing 25 million plus.

Corruption among the rich will never realistically stopped, or even be diminished. The best we can do is tax them more heavily so their victims are screwed by the goverment too.

[Berzerker]

It's facist because he is saying goverment perpetuation is more important, the GOAL of the goverment, and more important then its citizenry.

He didn't say that, he simply pointed out that bureaucracies exist to perpetuate their own existence. Look at the "March of Dimes". Once the disease that organisation was created to combat was gone, they simply switched to a new disease - and that's a private bureaucracy.

Red -

I'm not getting sanctimonious, I've been on both sides of the fence, and it's nice to know I havn't changed my ideals just because the money has started coming in

Me too, and I didn't ask for a dime from the government when I was homeless.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Me too, and I didn't ask for a dime from the government when I was homeless.

You should of-why were you homeless?

[Sava]

If someone can't afford healthcare, you might say that's unfair, but you can't say that it's fair to me to take my money to help them pay for it.

Let's see, what's more fair... allowing millions to suffer, possibly die... or force you to give up a little. Sorry, I think life is more important than your sense of entitlement.

I care about the objective definition of fairness, and in this case, it means that either everyone pays the same rate of tax, or no one pays any tax at all.

So your own subjective view of what's fair is more important than human life.... gotcha!

Fairness is an overrated concept. If poor people don't pay taxes, then their government won't do their bidding. Rather, it will do the bidding of those who pay the taxes. This fact is starkest at the local level.

They pay taxes... just not income taxes. And even if they weren't to pay direct taxes, they still would be paying indirects taxes in the form of the cost of other goods and services. Aren't you an Econ person Dan? I thought someone as yourself would understand this cycle.

There wouldn't be forced taxation if we had a true right wing system. Guess what, the poor wouldn't pay taxes like they do under your ideology, so pulling that old "I'm more compassionate than you" routine doesn't wash.

Sure, they wouldn't pay taxes because they wouldn't have any money. They'd be slaves to the people who control the means of production.

[Berzerker]

Couldn't afford my rent and all those taxes, so I lived out of my truck for a few months and saved up some money.