Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

[Dis]

btw I support taxing the rich and not taxing the poor.

I really support taxing the rich who make $1 more a year than I do. Anybody less than that shouldn't have to pay taxesThat way I don't have to pay taxes . This can be accomplished by raising the income tax of rich people to 65%. What are they gonna do about it? revolt?

The only thing I do oppose is giving the poor money they didn't earn. This delves into my personal beliefs into how the mind works. I have my reasons why people should be adults and take care of themselves. I believe the mind is healthier that way.

[David Floyd]

If you don't want all those social programs, then why all the taxes? Don't the taxes at that point just become punitive?

[Japher]

red:

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

$0 - $5000 - you pay no tax
5,000 -15000 - you pay 15% tax
$15000 - $30000 - you pay 20%
$30000 - $60000 - you pay 35%
$60000 + you pay 50%

totally arbritary figures, but you get the gist?

That is how it is done here, not sure if someone addressed that point.

Yet, the ranges are bigger and very more drasically so that some who does make over $250,000 will pay over %40 of the money they earn while people who make less than 75,000 will pay around 25%.

I think a flat tax would be fine if applied to a scale such as red listed aboved.

The thing is that rich people are more like to a) own their own buisness b) own a home, and c) earn more moeny.

Because of a) they can incorporate and shelter a lot of taxable dollars and right-off certain non-buisness related expenses as buisness, i.e. insurance, homes, cars, educations, etc...

Because of b) they can, and will, itemize their taxes as to optimize their returns. Righting off a lot of their taxes owing to interest rates, property taxes, and depreciation.

Yet, because of c) all these so called 'advantages' that people complain about the rich taking advantage of get taken away. As on gets richer tax shelters get taken away. You are no longer able to have those right-offs for b) and a lot of issues alotted to you in a) disappear as well since you have to great of an income, and are therefore not putting "enough" money back into a buisness that produces jobs. Yet, how are self-employed people suppose to create more work when there is only one of them?

Loopholes exist for a reason, to help give back to people who produce jobs and pay the higher percentage of all taxes, or give more to the goveernment. Yet, when that person begins to make too much those loopholes are removed and that person is stuck paying out 50% of their money. In essence someone who is making 275,000 can actually only see 200,000, the same amount that someone making 400,000 will see. Now, that is not capitalism, and is not because of taxes.

This is why a lot of rich folk shelter their money, buy a lot of investments, and suppress their earnings until they are able to actually realize more if taken into a new braket. Most millionares earn less than $250,000/year...

My point? Everyone should pay their share, but that share should be more directly linked with what they get out of society and what they give to society rather than arbitrary values assigned to earnings brackets. When someone who has created 50 jobs and nets 400,000 because of which actually only sees 200,000, which is the same amount that someone who created 10 jobs and nets 275,000... each with the same accountant.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If people are consistent in their beliefs, I believe that a lot more people would arrive at Libertarianism.

yes, but then they'd arrive at the problem known as 'taking account of the real world'.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, ok... well, let's consider this for a moment....

you pay more, you get more... the money the rich shell out help uphold a system that benefits them... and the poor... well, not so much. more like they're paying to support a system that represses them. The cops come to your house a lot faster if you live in one part of Englewood than in another... you're kids get a much better education at Bergen Academy (which is public) than at Ridgefield Park High... now, of course, you know not of the locations, but I hope you get the idea...

If the services are equal, then it qualifies making the taxes equal, but until then, people are getting what they paid for.

And perhaps the rich wouldn't have to pay so much if we..... Stopped shelling out money to support corporations! Or create an unnecessarily large military! Interesting that the people who are screaming for less taxes are also willing to shell out are money for these things... Once again, a system designed to help those who pay the most. I see no problems here.

But how about this.... a flat rate for income taxes, but the amount of time spent in prison for burglary is dramatically reduced. In fact, better yet, we'll have a special... one day a year, anybody who makes under $15,000 a year and is an independent gets to loot whatever they can grab.

[Japher]

Dom: The money given to the services is all the same, it is not where they are located that is the problem, but the people that use them. People in the "rich" community have better stuff because they take care of it while those in the "poor" neighborhoods would rather destroy it or spray paint their gang sign on it. So while the "rich" school is creating programs, building a new gym, increase revenue to the science club the "poor" school is having to buy new history books because the student boby decided they needed a bonfire...

Now, tell me, why should I or anyone else pay for their lack of respect for their schools and communities?

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, having come from one of those more disadvantaged schools, I can tell you the money IS NOT the same.

The town a few towns over from us had MUCH better facilities than us because their property taxes were higher, and in the case of regional schools, they were pooling money together from many different towns.

And honestly, can you tell me that the police treat the poor as well as they treat the rich? I don't think so.

And just so you know, my mom is a teacher, and she spent a half a year in one of the wealthier schools where the kids were unruly little beasts who destroyed anything they got their hands on... and in the poor school, the kids were much more respectful and never gave her a problem... yet those rich snobs CHASED her out of that school. She came home everyday CRYING... but the black kids at Kennedy High School in East Orange never gave her a problem.

[Japher]

a system designed to help those who pay the most. I see no problems here.

I agree with this, yet I am still under the impression that money for the schools are shelled out equal based on student attendance and not on income level of the neighborhood...

[Ben Kenobi]

The only way I can see libertarianism working is if people take personal responsibility for the plight of others. This way, those who are hard up will be helped by those who are better off, without the need for a welfare state.

The only problem is that you need to import other values into libertarianism to encourage people to help others less fortunate.

I'm all for a flat tax, if one can swing a smaller state, reducing the taxes across the board. I think that those who are productive will become more productive with a flat tax, increasing the overall taxes taken in simply because more people will make the minimum amount to be taxed, and others will make more so that they can be taxed more.

However, any reduction will need to be counterbalanced by charities, who will need to take on more of the duties fomerly taken on by the state. Would the libertarians mind seeing these charities play a bigger role?

[Dom Pedro II]

Maybe in your state... it varies from state to state. As far as I know... New Jersey has some kind of "no child left behind" program or something like that, but I've never seen any evidence that it's actually enforced. My school was much poorer than the school in the next town over, and we weren't destroying everything in sight... in fact, we barely had enough books to go around in the first place even before it got into students' hands.

So unless every one of our rapidly coming and going principles have been socking away millions of the public's money, I don't know what it could be other than property taxes.

And when I said "i see no problem here" I meant that I see no inconsistency... I don't actually believe that cops should be allowed to sit by and do nothing in the areas where the taxes paid are the lowest, nor should fires rage uncontrollably in such areas...

Not like in Brazil, where the simple solution when the ghetto catches on fire is to see how much of it it will take out. They lose tens of thousands of people in such fires... and they don't care. The people in the shanty towns don't pay ANY taxes... but when you don't even have a solid floor, how can you?

[Dom Pedro II]

Only a political level, I'm all for Libertarianism, but I refuse to become one because I know what they're all about...

They don't choose Libertarianism because the system works, they choose it because its the best way for the greedy bastards to get even richer. And I say to HELL with that.

I agree great obiwan.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
But how about this.... a flat rate for income taxes, but the amount of time spent in prison for burglary is dramatically reduced. In fact, better yet, we'll have a special... one day a year, anybody who makes under $15,000 a year and is an independent gets to loot whatever they can grab.

DOM PEDRO FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!

[Japher]

Dom: I know that here in CA that is how they divy the money. School districts are better or worse due to the clients they serve (respectible or not), the organization of their district (year round, magnet schools, dress codes), and the size of their student body.

Cops should do their jobs, period. If you see a cop not doing his job get his badge number or car number and report it to the police and your congressman.

Libertarianism is conservatism with a greater Lasse Faire policy... I think it would work, but their would need to be a lot of changes to the local governments.

A flat tax, and libertarian state would work if the adjustments in taxes per income braket were larger and more discreet. This will, however, cause larger class gaps, but would force charitable donations and increase the welfare of social services. This will occur by those who fall midway between one braket and another, so that it would be cheaper for them to give money than to keep it.

I.e.

If you make from ??? up to 75k you pay 20% of your total income as tax.

If you make from 75k to 150k you pay 26% of your total income as tax.

If you make from 150k to 250k you pay 32% of your total income as tax

If you make from 250k to 400k you pay 38% of your total income as tax

and anything over you pay 42%...

This would force people to either a) shelter the money best they can in investments or b) donate the extra money over what the would earn to stay with in their bracket. Will have to make at least 162k to break even with someone making 150k after taxes, giving 12k that needs to be given to charity in order to actually make as much as someone making 150k. This difference becomes bigger with the differing tax brackets. Then, to maintain it as a flat tax, if one tax % goes up or down within any bracket, they all do proportionally (or the same percentage)...

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, there are certainly a number of rich who aren't exactly paying what they ought to be...

but anyway, I'm even more libertarian than libertarians..

I personally would eliminate public high school altogether in every state.

Get rid of social security, get rid of welfare (although I would employ a negative income tax).

Dismantle most of the military, FBI, and CIA and stick with a small but efficient system.

I would make government subsidies non-existent. If they can't float on their own, they sink. Period.

And I would emphasize a greater amount on private charities. I mean, honestly, what does it say for our society when the government has to do everything for us? I mean, those who claim compassion for their fellow man ignore the fact that if anything, government charity breeds complacency and disinterest.

We ALL have a responsibility to help our fellow men, and we should do our part when we can. That doesn't just mean contributions either, it means in our time as well. What's the point of building a society where somebody's life may be entirely dependent on a populace and a bureaucracy that doesn't give a damn?

In short, the government that governs best governs least.

[Japher]

I'm right there with you Dom, except for the military, FBI, and CIA bit.

Yet to everything else