Tax the rich!!!

[David Floyd]

wouldnt an increase tax on the rich benefit the country a lot more? im trying to be realistic and trying to think of ways to benefit the working and service class as much as possible.

No - point out an efficient government program. Found one? Good. Now think of all the examples of inefficient government programs. There's a lot more of them, aren't there. Now look at how the government handles money - huge debt, huge deficit, both rising.

Now, if you want to talk about health care, the US hovers near the top in terms of overall quality, and in terms of specialization, complex surgery, etc., we are at the top. If you want to talk about education of doctors, again, the US is at the top.

As to people having health care, they can either pay for it up front, or purchase health insurance. They can't afford it? Well, I guess it's time for a few lifestyle changes - but I can tell you that a lot of lower class families go without health insurance but somehow stay in Nikes and video games and junk food. Go figure - people set their own priorities, and when those don't work out to their best advantage, I'm not sympathetic. Why punish those who make good choices by forcing them to correct the bad choices of others? I don't see the point, or the wisdom.

And the rich aren't gonna be beaten to death in 50 years. Come on. The US just is NOT overrun by poverty - we are largely middle class, relative to the rest of the world, and relative to many parts of the world, the poorest Americans are fabulously wealthy.

In any case, it's illegal to beat people to death, and in my state, if someone tries to beat you to death, you can pull out your concealed handgun and shoot them back

And if that doesn't work, and you do beat someone to death, well, that's what Ole Sparky's for

[Ming]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ming: the problem with that is that it means more money is being collected at the expense of the middle class and less from the truly wealthy.

From the same source:

Despite widespread adoption of such policies, few seem to understand what marginal tax rates are and why they matter. In the United States, for example, it is commonly believed that the Reagan administration "slashed taxes," particularly for "the rich." Actually, real (that is, inflation-adjusted) federal receipts increased by one-third from 1980 to 1990. Moreover, the most affluent 5 percent of all taxpayers paid 45.9 percent of all federal income taxes in 1988—up from 37.6 percent in 1979. Apparent "tax cuts"—from a top marginal rate of 70 percent to 33 percent—became actual tax increases, particularly for "the rich."

[GePap]

And that, right there, is why libertarianism is the greatest pipe dream EVER, and thankfully, will NEVER happen, becuase in about 6 seconds, it would collapese into first anarchy, then dictaorship.

[Japher]

whereas dropping the highest marginal tax rate helps those with highest incomes most

Does it? I ain't so sure that dropping that rate doesn't help increase the standard of living for everyone. Not to say that lowing the higher brakets rates to 0 would all of a sudden feed the hungry and put give them health care... Though, neither does lowering the taxes for all other brakets or even increasing those taxes. Government efficiency is an oxymoron after all.

I would agree that the middle class is the class that suffers the most. Taking less and giving more, marginally.

[David Floyd]

And that, right there, is why libertarianism is the greatest pipe dream EVER, and thankfully, will NEVER happen, becuase in about 6 seconds, it would collapese into first anarchy, then dictaorship.

Huh? All I did was point out that the government is not known for creating efficient or effective programs, that the US health care system is currently at or near the top of the world in most categories, that many people who can't afford health care can afford other luxuries, and made some smart-ass comments about the "people's revolution".

No pipe dream with much of that, I think.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
the poorest Americans are fabulously wealthy.

How rich are you? You are incredibly out of touch with mainstream America.

[GePap]

Moreover, the most affluent 5 percent of all taxpayers paid 45.9 percent of all federal income taxes in 1988—up from 37.6 percent in 1979. Apparent "tax cuts"—from a top marginal rate of 70 percent to 33 percent—became actual tax increases, particularly for "the rich."

Well, there is another possible explination- relative incomes for those in the middle declined under Reagan and Bush 1 when compared to the rate of inflation, while the incomes of the top ballooned, meaning that even if the rates were cut, their share of income would rise, specially if onerous loopholes that allowed for massive tax evasion under the old systems vanished.

[Japher]

There's a radio personality named Rob Black who says that 'I don't mind paying more taxes, it means I'm making more money!'

For what ming bolded in the quote I wouldn't equate paying a higher over all percentage of taxes compared to the rest of the country to paying more taxes percentagewise. All that shows is that between 1979 and today the top 5% are making more money such that they are taxed 8% more... technically, improving the gap between classes by 8%.

Affluent also means that they make the money, income, not that they are sitting on mounds of cash doing nothing, or that is untaxable. Many people are mad that a lot of people through their monies into tax shelters.

[David Floyd]

How rich are you? You are incredibly out of touch with mainstream America.

You misquoted me. As compared to the average resident of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, 99%+ of Americans would be considered fabulously wealthy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ming


From the same source:

a) 1979 to 1988 were, AFAIK, the strongest inflationary years in US history

b) They're doing the top 5%. Take the top 1% and the answer might well be different

c) It does nothing to dispute the fact that the next 20% were probably more severely affected than the top 5%

d) How do you know the top 5% were not more wealthy (relative to the rest of the US population) in 1988 than they were in 1979? If that is the case then without changing the tax system at all and without any inflation whatsoever they still would have seen a tax increase (because they were making more).

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
[Well, there is another possible explination- relative incomes for those in the middle declined under Reagan and Bush 1 when compared to the rate of inflation, while the incomes of the top ballooned, meaning that even if the rates were cut, their share of income would rise, specially if onerous loopholes that allowed for massive tax evasion under the old systems vanished.

They did say "Actually, real (that is, inflation-adjusted) federal receipts increased by one-third from 1980 to 1990."

[Provost Harrison]

Tax the Rich? I'm taxed enough already

[MRT144]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No - point out an efficient government program. Found one? Good. Now think of all the examples of inefficient government programs. There's a lot more of them, aren't there. Now look at how the government handles money - huge debt, huge deficit, both rising.

Now, if you want to talk about health care, the US hovers near the top in terms of overall quality, and in terms of specialization, complex surgery, etc., we are at the top. If you want to talk about education of doctors, again, the US is at the top.

As to people having health care, they can either pay for it up front, or purchase health insurance. They can't afford it? Well, I guess it's time for a few lifestyle changes - but I can tell you that a lot of lower class families go without health insurance but somehow stay in Nikes and video games and junk food. Go figure - people set their own priorities, and when those don't work out to their best advantage, I'm not sympathetic. Why punish those who make good choices by forcing them to correct the bad choices of others? I don't see the point, or the wisdom.

And the rich aren't gonna be beaten to death in 50 years. Come on. The US just is NOT overrun by poverty - we are largely middle class, relative to the rest of the world, and relative to many parts of the world, the poorest Americans are fabulously wealthy.

In any case, it's illegal to beat people to death, and in my state, if someone tries to beat you to death, you can pull out your concealed handgun and shoot them back

And if that doesn't work, and you do beat someone to death, well, that's what Ole Sparky's for

David, as i said you dont care about what really happens so long as youre goals of every dog for himself are met. as this is the case you can stop participating in the discussion.

David, we are not "largely middle class". As time is moving on we are become more of a society of the haves, and have nots. we are turning into a service based economy. In this situation the people that are providing these services are not making enough to consume the services.

I also believe that a benevolent government (like canada) is a lot better than private enterprise to run everything. sure it may be wasteful, but at least it isnt sucking the soul out of you and trying to make you into a consumer whore.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Tax the Rich? I'm taxed enough already

[Velociryx]

I got no problem with paying according to my means. If I make more, I have done so in part, due to my own efforts, and in part due to the system that celebrates them and encourages their use, so yeah. Sign me up for paying my fair share. If it's more than somebody else pays, what do I care? I'm game, and I got better things to do than pour over your tax returns to compare notes....

-=Vel=-