Taxes!

[moza]

Equalize footing for Middle class and upper class, doesn't seem right to me. People in the Upper class either got there through work(i.e, Bill Gates), were born there(i.e. Bill Gates's Kids), or just got lucky(i.e. winnning the lottery).

Is it your fault you worked hard to get where you are? Since you worked so hard, should you need to give so much away when it is Your Money?

Should you be forced to live a different livestyle because you were born into a rich Family?

Should you be forced to share your luck with others?

To me, the answear to all of the above in NO.
N,O.

Also, do you want to pay taxes, or a simple toll? 5% Sales tax? or just 1 dollar(or even less for populated areas) to go onto the road?

In Fact, you don't even need to pay upfront! You could buy a special Lisence plate, and at the end of the month, you get charged by the Company that funded the roads! That way, since they are getting a lot of money, they roads can be in better condition, Longer!

I can tell you that here in MI, some of the roads are just AWFUL, and know what? We are the Moter CITY!!!eleventyone!! Why don't we have good roads? I don't know, haven't studied politics, I am only a 14 year old who likes Video Games:lol:

 

[Professor_Chris]

Paying taxes for something I use and/or benefit from (roads, the army, parks, etc) is different from paying for things that I cannot use and/or benefit from (welfare, social security, etc). There is a difference between using government money for something that benefits most of society and paying out to citizens directly. The latter is unconstitutional anyway.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

Is that the best method of attaining true economic equality?

If "economic equality" means what I think it means, then the answer is some sort of perfect communism, where there is no currency, and indeed, ownership is probably loose if at all existant, and everyone works for the good of everyone.

You're setting some pretty high goals there, I guess is my point. I don't know if that's what people are really striving for.

 

[Marril]

Equalize footing for Middle class and upper class, doesn't seem right to me. People in the Upper class either got there through work(i.e, Bill Gates), were born there(i.e. Bill Gates's Kids), or just got lucky(i.e. winnning the lottery).

Right, so someone who works hellishly hard hours their entire life can get nowhere, but being born with a rich daddy and never having to put any serious work in is perfectly fair?

Should you be forced to share your luck with others?

And if you're not lucky? A hell of a lot of people are less lucky than others. I don't see how any society can be healthy when it actively promotes elitism in the form of offering no aid to the lower classes, especially no redistribution of wealth which would otherwise be pooling up in the upper class.

I can tell you that here in MI,

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, this is a "right to work" state. Just a bit of a sampling of what people raised under that doctrine believe, that helping the poor to not be poor is a bad idea.

I don't know, haven't studied politics, I am only a 14 year old who likes Video Games

It shows.

Paying taxes for something I use and/or benefit from (roads, the army, parks, etc) is different from paying for things that I cannot use and/or benefit from (welfare, social security, etc).

Welfare and social security benefit all members of society who must partake in them, and the money could not come from nowhere. Again, imagine the situation if the poor could get no help. They would have no chance, compared to the (albeit sometimes quite small) chance they have now.

The whole "if my money's going towards it, I should be getting the benefits" thing is nothing more than pure selfishness. You're not losing any vast amounts of your money from it, and it helps society in general.

 

[TheDancingPeanut]

To summarize Jim's post, for those that don't care to read:
It is fair to force someone to give to others when what they are giving is not legitimately earned or achieved.
The real question is: is the forced giving really making a difference? Is that the best method of attaining true economic equality?

Ryan, you're an ***.
That's not what I said, and the tone of my post was not confrontation in any way shape or form.
Did I ever say anything about economic equality? I don't recall saying that, maybe I did.
I spoke about creating a fair playing field so the poor have opportunities to better themselves.

There is a difference between an individual poor person having the ability to better themselves and the poor, as a rule, having that opportunity.

I am of the belief that the world will be a better place when there are less poor people.

I don't inherently believe that the wealthy are evil or do not deserve to be wealthy.

But we have a problem:

Either poverty is a problem which makes the world a worse place to live
Or poverty is a required element of a functioning system.
Or, that it is both and we shouldn't try to do anything about it (i.e. economic darwinism).

Now, let me say this.
You did not summerize my post because almost my entire post was about the valuation of the labor market.
So please, for god's sake, don't freaking mis-quote me.
I don't care if you disagree, but DO NOT imply I said something I didn't say.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

It would look like those who earn a living wouldn't have to give there money away.

OK, so let me ask you this: how do you stop the long-term consolidation of income?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Paying taxes for something I use and/or benefit from (roads, the army, parks, etc) is different from paying for things that I cannot use and/or benefit from (welfare, social security, etc).

I think, and please forgive me, because this is not an insult to you, that its a very narrow-minded view to say that social programs do not directly benefit you.

When communities have less povery, everyone but the wealthiest benefits from that.

Do you really, honestly believe that all that matters is YOUR income?
I'm asking because I don't know.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

I am of the belief that the world will be a better place when there are less poor people.

The thing is, as even Moss pointed out, I think, is that poverty is relative. You feel poor if there are people far above you. If everyone's poor, no one's poor. If there are no poor, the middle class is poor (and is automatically bumped down to lower class, I guess). What I'm getting at is, in terms of standards of living, there's pretty much always going to be poor people.

Um... yeah. I guess I could go to some sort of point from that, but at the moment I'm blanking on one.

 

[moza]

Right, so someone who works hellishly hard hours their entire life can get nowhere, but being born with a rich daddy and never having to put any serious work in is perfectly fair?

Someone who works those kind of hours you ive can still make a better life for his/her Children. His/her Children can get a better education. His/her children can make a better life for themselves, and may become rich Daddy's and Mommys.

And if you're not lucky? A hell of a lot of people are less lucky than others. I don't see how any society can be healthy when it actively promotes elitism in the form of offering no aid to the lower classes, especially no redistribution of wealth which would otherwise be pooling up in the upper class.

If you aren't lucky, then you aren't lucky. That is the reflexive property iirc.
If you can't see us being healthy, then why do /are we / keep 3rd as it's own sentence:

A) Millions of immigrant Flock to the US in hopes of a better life?
B) We are a world Super Power?
C) Even though we are in debt, we are MUCH better off then the rest of the world?

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, this is a "right to work" state. Just a bit of a sampling of what people raised under that doctrine believe, that helping the poor to not be poor is a bad idea.

Wow, thanks for only quoting something that could not stand alone in a sentence =/

Also, I was not raised below any doctrine, as I have moved much to much(if you want from where, PM me). Also, why do you think that I think helping the Poor is a bad idea? Did I ever say it was a "bad Idea"? Helping the poor is great if you have the time and effort to do it!

It shows.

thx for the attack, really appreciate that. ;(

 

[TheDancingPeanut]

The thing is, as even Moss pointed out, I think, is that poverty is relative. You feel poor if there are people far above you. If everyone's poor, no one's poor. If there are no poor, the middle class is poor (and is automatically bumped down to lower class, I guess). What I'm getting at is, in terms of standards of living, there's pretty much always going to be poor people.

Um... yeah. I guess I could go to some sort of point from that, but at the moment I'm blanking on one.

No, you're right, I agree with you!
I guess what I mean by "poor" is that there should not be a widespread struggle for essentials such as food and shelter.
When people are fed and secure they will be more productive.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

If you can't see us being healthy, then why do /are we / keep 3rd as it's own sentence:

A) Millions of immigrant Flock to the US in hopes of a better life?
B) We are a world Super Power?

The United States aren't purely capitalist.

C) Even though we are in debt, we are MUCH better off then the rest of the world?

First of all, that's a pretty bold statement. And second, it's because the debt isn't being dealt with. If some schmo takes out a bunch of loans and totally ignores paying them back, it's going to look like he's doing well too.

 

[moza]

looking at countries in Africa makes me think the US is pretty decent.

 

[Professor_Chris]

Welfare and social security benefit all members of society who must partake in them, and the money could not come from nowhere. Again, imagine the situation if the poor could get no help. They would have no chance, compared to the (albeit sometimes quite small) chance they have now.

The whole "if my money's going towards it, I should be getting the benefits" thing is nothing more than pure selfishness. You're not losing any vast amounts of your money from it, and it helps society in general.

Who says they have no chance? So, the poor are totally helpless on their own? They have no way to survive if the government doesn't take care of them? Are they INFANTS? The government currently gives people incintives to stay poor. The living conditions of the poor really aren't all that bad comparitively speaking to poor of other countries. You can live off welfare. You can even live "decently" off welfare if you know someone who will pay you cash for your work so you don't have to claim the income. I've seen it done.

Selfishness? Excuse me for being opposed to having my money STOLEN from me and GIVEN to people who did nothing to earn it. If I want to give to a charity case I WILL GIVE TO A CHARITY CASE. I'm not opposed to helping the poor. I'm not opposed to giving someone something I own for nothing in return if I want to. I am opposed to someone saying I HAVE TO and TAKING IT FROM ME WITHOUT MY CONSENT. This isn't selfishness. I should be able chose what happens to what I own. It's mine. If I want to give it away to someone needy it's my buisiness. I have no problem paying taxes for roads and even schools (though the schools need more than more money thrown at them). Leave the nonprofit organizations and communities to help the poor. It's not the job of the federal government.

I think, and please forgive me, because this is not an insult to you, that its a very narrow-minded view to say that social programs do not directly benefit you.

When communities have less povery, everyone but the wealthiest benefits from that.

Do you really, honestly believe that all that matters is YOUR income?
I'm asking because I don't know.

The thing is this: the government isn't helping poverty any. They're throwing money at it and it doesn't help in the long run. All it does is keep people dependant on a government that they're not even grateful for. How could they be greatful? They didn't do anything to earn it. They EXPECT it.

Do I believe that all that matters is my income? Of course not. There are plenty of other things that also matter. Do I believe someone less fortunate is ENTITLED to part of my income? Not in a million years. I'm not opposed to helping the poor. I don't believe the government is helping them and I don't believe they deserve what is mine. If I want to give them what is mine I will do so. I will donate to worthy causes and/or I will volunteer my time if I wish. But I do not endorse having my money taken from me because someone feels they're entitled to part of my pay check.

 

[Marril]

What I'm getting at is, in terms of standards of living, there's pretty much always going to be poor people.

In the defense of what I'm arguing, my standpoint is that the gap between "rich" and "poor" should not be as great as it is.

Someone who works those kind of hours you ive can still make a better life for his/her Children. His/her Children can get a better education. His/her children can make a better life for themselves, and may become rich Daddy's and Mommys.

Not if you were never rich enough to afford the opportunities to get ahead (post-secondary education, etc), and are forced to work relatively close to minimum wage throughout your life. There are people out there who, no matter how hard they work, aren't going to "become rich Daddy's and Mommys". There are people out there who are born rich and have to do nothing to stay rich.

This is inequality.

A) Millions of immigrant Flock to the US in hopes of a better life?

They know that the US has laws that allow the American upper class to exploit them by offering them meagre handouts. For example, the issue of I think it was Wal-Mart offering lower than minimum wages to illegal immigrants... the situation for the immigrants basically said it was a good idea to do this, but nobody was being benefitted except the corporations which were making more profits because of having to pay less.

B) We are a world Super Power?

Your overdeveloped military that invades other nations for profit sure doesn't have anything to do with it...

C) Even though we are in debt, we are MUCH better off then the rest of the world?

Until your economy collapses from doing nothing but spiralling down deeper and deeper into debt. America's economy is not limitless, and at this rate it is only a matter of time before it collapses.

Also, why do you think that I think helping the Poor is a bad idea? Did I ever say it was a "bad Idea"? Helping the poor is great if you have the time and effort to do it!

Welfare is run by people with the time and effort to do it.

thx for the attack, really appreciate that. ;(

Note that while you are ignorant of a lot of issues, ignorance by itself is not bad. I was merely pointing out this ignorance. Now, if this ignorance was accompanied by an unwillingness to learn, it would be a bad thing.

looking at countries in Africa makes me think the US is pretty decent.

Ah, I remember "the losers in America are winners everywhere else" thing from Rich People. Such blatant ignorance and arrogance. It does nothing for the people out on the streets to tell them that there are starving children in Africa. You cannot simply point fingers and shove the problem under the rug.

The government currently gives people incintives to stay poor.

Barely enough money for a cheap apartment and food enough not to starve, and then taxing any other earned money by 100% are not "incintives[sic] to stay poor".

Excuse me for being opposed to having my money STOLEN from me and GIVEN to people who did nothing to earn it.

Misleading. Not all tax money is "given" to people who didn't earn it. Welfare is what "gives" this money to the poor. Other social programs aimed at helping the poor, you have said nothing about, and I doubt that you have anything to say on the subject given your long tirades of "it's my money, mine mine mine!" So I take it welfare is the main point of concern with you.

Stealing is wrong, but taxes aren't stealing. Don't like it? Do as Moss keeps saying, and vote with your feet. What? You won't and/or can't? Funny, that's what a lot of people he says should be voting with their feet say...

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

looking at countries in Africa makes me think the US is pretty decent.

"Pretty decent" compared to "countries in Africa" is nothing like "MUCH better off than the rest of the world."

Moving on to something else altogether...
I've read a lot in this thread about how it's not fair to take somebody's hard-earned money and just hand it over to some poor fellow. Well, then, think about this... Is it fair that the immigrant (let's say, for an extreme example) that works his *** off his whole life would be lucky to end up as well as the guy that was born rich and cruised by on his connections? Isn't capitalism supposed to be about rewarding merit?

This is pretty just another one of my points, but rephrased in what's hopefully a more relateable example.

 

[Professor_Chris]

Barely enough money for a cheap apartment and food enough not to starve, and then taxing any other earned money by 100% are not "incintives[sic] to stay poor".



Misleading. Not all tax money is "given" to people who didn't earn it. Welfare is what "gives" this money to the poor. Other social programs aimed at helping the poor, you have said nothing about, and I doubt that you have anything to say on the subject given your long tirades of "it's my money, mine mine mine!" So I take it welfare is the main point of concern with you.

Stealing is wrong, but taxes aren't stealing. Don't like it? Do as Moss keeps saying, and vote with your feet. What? You won't and/or can't? Funny, that's what a lot of people he says should be voting with their feet say...

Enough money for food and shelter IS incentive to stay poor. Some people are perfectly happy with that. Especially if they can work for cash that they don't have to claim.

Did I ever say all my tax money goes to the poor? No. If you read my post I was against ANY of my money being taken from me to give to someone else (though I particularly harped on the poor since it seemed to be the current topic). I don't mean direct cash handouts either. I'm also against my money being used by the government to buy up surplus agricultural products to keep their prices high. I'm against the government using my money to pay farmers not to plant specific crops. I am against the unconstitutional behaivor of my government especially when it concerns my tax dollars.

Why try to make me sound like the bad guy because I want control of what I own?

You can't vote with your feet with the government. Moss has made this point to you plenty of times. If I don't like what the government is doing with my tax dollars I can't just stop paying taxes.

 

[moza]

Not if you were never rich enough to afford the opportunities to get ahead (post-secondary education, etc), and are forced to work relatively close to minimum wage throughout your life. There are people out there who, no matter how hard they work, aren't going to "become rich Daddy's and Mommys". There are people out there who are born rich and have to do nothing to stay rich.

This is inequality.

If you are "forced", as you say, to working minimum wage all your life, then I would like to talk to the person "forcing" you. No one is "forcing" you to stay at minimum wage. If you work harder, and learn more, you can do better. It is never to late to improve. Ever.

They know that the US has laws that allow the American upper class to exploit them by offering them meagre handouts. For example, the issue of I think it was Wal-Mart offering lower than minimum wages to illegal immigrants... the situation for the immigrants basically said it was a good idea to do this, but nobody was being benefitted except the corporations which were making more profits because of having to pay less.

So, wait a minute, if they "know" that the US has laws that allow the American upper class to exploit them by offering them meagre handouts, why would they come?
Because they can do better. You can always do better, no matter what instance you are in, you can do better(well, unless you are blind, mute, deaf, and have lung cancer, but that is where normal people give money to charities.)

Also, were those employees willing to work for those wages? If they were, that is their fault, and the company can exploit that.

Your overdeveloped military that invades other nations for profit sure doesn't have anything to do with it...

It does have things to do with it, and I am not happy about how the US military has been acting lately. But we didn't get that overdeveloped military from no where, we built up our economy so we could afford it.

Until your economy collapses from doing nothing but spiralling down deeper and deeper into debt. America's economy is not limitless, and at this rate it is only a matter of time before it collapses.

It is only a matter of time before all the civilizations on Earth collapse. It will happen, it has done so in the past, and will continue to happen. Just remember that your economy is not limitless either, you want everyone to be on equal footing so those who excel don't get rewarded.

If 1 Ninja Pirate attacked an enemy submerine, and stole all of the gold, should he be forced to give it to those who did not earn it?

Welfare is run by people with the time and effort to do it.

It is run by those people. Of course they have the time and effort to do it because it is there job!
A lot of people don't like welfare, so it doesn't seem like they are doing a very good job.

Note that while you are ignorant of a lot of issues, ignorance by itself is not bad. I was merely pointing out this ignorance. Now, if this ignorance was accompanied by an unwillingness to learn, it would be a bad thing.

If you would like to give out links about where you get your stuff, that would help educate me quite a bit.

Ah, I remember "the losers in America are winners everywhere else" thing from Rich People. Such blatant ignorance and arrogance. It does nothing for the people out on the streets to tell them that there are starving children in Africa. You cannot simply point fingers and shove the problem under the rug.

Zak already pointed out that there will be a "poor" in every society. Comparing 1 nation's poor to the same nation's rich seems rather pointless to me.



EDIT: So many people replied after me, so here is another reply:

"Pretty decent" compared to "countries in Africa" is nothing like "MUCH better off than the rest of the world."

Moving on to something else altogether...
I've read a lot in this thread about how it's not fair to take somebody's hard-earned money and just hand it over to some poor fellow. Well, then, think about this... Is it fair that the immigrant (let's say, for an extreme example) that works his *** off his whole life would be lucky to end up as well as the guy that was born rich and cruised by on his connections? Isn't capitalism supposed to be about rewarding merit?

This is pretty just another one of my points, but rephrased in what's hopefully a more relateable example.

Much better off then the rest of the world:

Development workers also call them the two-thirds world (because two-thirds of the world is underdeveloped)

2/3's is a pretty big number, in fact, a huge number.
I should of clarified my post so it wasn't "the rest of the World" but 2/3's the world. My bad.

Capitalism is about rewarding merit. How much wealth is he creating?

Life hands you your hand. Why should the rich guy need to pay for the other person? Because the rich guy isn't using that money?

If he does work very hard, then he is a hard worker. If he is a hard worker, he should be able to work hard with studies as well, and make it better for his/her kids.

 

[Professor_Chris]

"Pretty decent" compared to "countries in Africa" is nothing like "MUCH better off than the rest of the world."

Moving on to something else altogether...
I've read a lot in this thread about how it's not fair to take somebody's hard-earned money and just hand it over to some poor fellow. Well, then, think about this... Is it fair that the immigrant (let's say, for an extreme example) that works his *** off his whole life would be lucky to end up as well as the guy that was born rich and cruised by on his connections? Isn't capitalism supposed to be about rewarding merit?

This is pretty just another one of my points, but rephrased in what's hopefully a more relateable example.

By "Moving on to something else altogether" you mean "Moving completely off topic" what does this have to do with taxes? :|

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

^

As for taxes, give me a break! I haven't said a word about taxes since I entered this debate and you know it. I'm only here to point out how capitalism isn't as great as you apparently think it is, and you've only now decided to point out how it's all been off-topic. Rather dodgy, if you ask me.

But we didn't get that overdeveloped military from no where, we built up our economy so we could afford it.

Again, by "built up your economy" you essentially mean "took out a bunch of loans." The current war in Iraq, for instance, is loan-funded, considering the fact that that Bush administration has pretty much borrowed more money than all administrations before it, and also lowered taxes in wartime.

 

[moza]

Yes, taking loans is a way to build up ones economy. I already stated that I am not happy with the US army.

 

[Marril]

Enough money for food and shelter IS incentive to stay poor. Some people are perfectly happy with that.

You try it. Seriously. "Some" people do not mean that everyone under the system will be unmotivated.

I don't mean direct cash handouts either. I'm also against my money being used by the government to buy up surplus agricultural products to keep their prices high. I'm against the government using my money to pay farmers not to plant specific crops. I am against the unconstitutional behaivor of my government especially when it concerns my tax dollars.

Are you against basic social programs or not?

You can't vote with your feet with the government.

It's called leaving the country. It's possible, therefore to sound Moss-like, it should be the balance... don't like government, leave the country. It's actually a beautiful comparison to how Moss' arguments work with real life anyway.

I'm relatively serious, as long as people are going to take a "vote with your feet" option, I may as well too.

If you are "forced", as you say, to working minimum wage all your life, then I would like to talk to the person "forcing" you. No one is "forcing" you to stay at minimum wage. If you work harder, and learn more, you can do better. It is never to late to improve. Ever.

Show me someone willing to pay $30 an hour to someone who barely managed to pass high school (if that) and has few to no actual job skills.

Also, were those employees willing to work for those wages? If they were, that is their fault, and the company can exploit that.

The company should be allowed to pay lower than minimum wage to illegal immigrants, which in turn hurts Americans who cannot find work because of this?

Seriously, learn the issue. The word "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" is not for decoration. America should not be allowing these people to get jobs.

It does have things to do with it, and I am not happy about how the US military has been acting lately. But we didn't get that overdeveloped military from no where, we built up our economy so we could afford it.

But it can't be afforded. Look how much war costs. Look at how the debt is soaring... it's overdeveloped, it's directly causing the country harm.

It is only a matter of time before all the civilizations on Earth collapse. It will happen, it has done so in the past, and will continue to happen. Just remember that your economy is not limitless either, you want everyone to be on equal footing so those who excel don't get rewarded.

America's collapse, however, is assuredly within the next decade or two at best if it continues along the path it is currently.

If 1 Ninja Pirate attacked an enemy submerine, and stole all of the gold, should he be forced to give it to those who did not earn it?

I'll rephrase, "If one corrupt country invades another, and steals all of the oil, should they be allowed to keep it though they did not earn it?"

If you would like to give out links about where you get your stuff, that would help educate me quite a bit.

I don't have one generic source outside of Canadian Mind Products, it's otherwise just whatever I can find... Maybe try gregpalast.com as well, but really it's a lot of accumulated reading, with some real life experience.

Zak already pointed out that there will be a "poor" in every society. Comparing 1 nation's poor to the same nation's rich seems rather pointless to me.

Indeed!

 

[moza]

Show me someone willing to pay $30 an hour to someone who barely managed to pass high school (if that) and has few to no actual job skills.

If that person is can create wealth, a company will pay him proportianally to the amount of weath he creats. I am not in touch with many CEO's of large companies, so I really couldn't "show" you.

The company should be allowed to pay lower than minimum wage to illegal immigrants, which in turn hurts Americans who cannot find work because of this?

Seriously, learn the issue. The word "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" is not for decoration. America should not be allowing these people to get jobs.

If those employees are willing to work for less, then the company can arrange for that to happen. If they are not willing to work for less than minimum wage, then they can strike or sue(if the company enforces lower than minimum wages).

But it can't be afforded. Look how much war costs. Look at how the debt is soaring... it's overdeveloped, it's directly causing the country harm.

I already stated that I dislike the way the American Army is headed. I agree it is hurting the US economy, but one way to determine a country's wealth is how large their army is. I bet the Atheniens would call the Spartans "poor" because they didn't have fancy schools.

I'll rephrase, "If one corrupt country invades another, and steals all of the oil, should they be allowed to keep it though they did not earn it?"

If one country has the power to take something from another, and it would be benificial to them, then they can. I am not saying I am all for the Iraq war, I am against it, I am just saying that taking over one country is a way to earn what it has. Just not the best way to earn it.

BTW, thanks for the links, I will be sure to check them out tomarrow!