Joe the Faker?

[Dr. Mason]

Is it justice that men who work much harder than those running the factory they work at roll in money while the hard workers barely feed their families? Is it justice when people have spent their entire life working die because they cannot afford to pay for expensive medical care? Is it justice when a man who can barely walk and is nearly blind has to throw away his pride and cling on to whomever can take him because no one else will help him? Is it justice that feeds these men to the fire, who only did their best to die in the pursuit of happiness, so that the rich can get richer?

Answer me that, because I know and have known for years that that answer is no, and that the rest of my family is not wallowing in poverty because justice has been served, but because it has been denied. I have a deep respect for all beliefs, save the one where someone tells me that doing nothing to protect the lower class is justice.

Making my point here, and not going to continue this as an argument.

 

[Boofu]

Earlier in this thread I also pointed out that people shouldn't starve to death. You are listing very extreme and fringe examples. Obama's tax plan paints with the largest brush including everything in between.

Justice (n); judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments

Rights are those given by God and guaranteed by our government. We do not have the right to a job. We do not have a right to steal from someone to give to someone else who doesn't even need it (Obama's broad brush plan in any other form would be called plunder). We do not have a right to income. We do not have a right to happiness, only the right to pursue it. Rewards and punishments imply the act of earning. In America today there is absolutely ZERO excuse for not succeeding, outside of uncontrollable handicaps. So I have little sympathy for those who have made poor choices in their life and expect everyone else to take up the slack for them.

And Jesus asked each and every person to do their best to help others. I forgot you were exempt.

Are you blind, or do you just not know how to read? Maybe you should read what you quoted from my previous post, you will find your answer to this. I guarantee it.

and based on the symbol behind feraligatr on your avatar, I doubt we will ever get past the proletariat vs bourgeois argument so it is probably best that we end it here.

 

[PokeDad]

Yes Pokedad, I am back. I have been BUSY managing a state house campaign in Iowa. We nicknamed our direct mail campaign of 40 thousand pieces "operation insomniac." The direct mail dropped on Thursday, so I will have a lot more free time to bring truth to the Gym.

I commend you for your political action. I have worked winning and losing campaigns, and have felt better for my effort than for my donations and votes ('though all are important).

There are 2 different tax systems I would like to see:

1st one is the flat tax which would garnish a fixed percentage across all income levels.

So in the separate cases of your three scenarios, Pokedad:

Family making 50k/year with 15% tax rate = $7,500 tax burden

Family making 250k/year with 15% tax rate = $37,500 tax burden

Family making 5M/year with 15% tax rate = $750,000 tax burden

The tax rate for a $50,000 income household is already 15%. You are just suggesting that the wealthy have their tax rate reduced.

Many wealthy households do no work for their money, merely benefit from investment income. Currently, he tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. You are just suggesting that the poor have their tax rate increased.

2nd Scenario is the fair tax which you addressed.

One commonly unknown fact about the fair-tax is that it really IS progressive. There is a tax rebate on spending until the spending passes the poverty line.

So, let's arbitrarily say the poverty line is $20k/year. $20k X .20 = $4000 given back as a rebate check. Spending past that is not given back. Therefore, the rich, spending more on their house, their car, entertainment, out dining, etc etc is GOING to be taxed more as a percentage of income because their spending will most definitely go further past the poverty line than lower income earners. What I like about this system, is that it encourages savings and investment because it gets rid of the capital gains taxes. Taxation is based on actions of the person being taxed. It brings people into the system like Illegal immigrants. Taxation is mostly on luxuries... and the system doesn't so grossly favor one group over another.

This progressive adjustment would mean that the actual taxes would be:

$50,000 - 8% - $6,000 discretionary income
$250,000 - 1.6% - $246,000 discretionary income
$5,000,000 - 0.08% - $4,996,000 discretionary income

That doesn't seem any better to me.

When were we talking about war, Pokedad?

Anyways, I applied for the Airforce Academy out of highschool, and thought I was going to get in, but was rejected because of previous bouts with asthma. I went through all the Physical Aptitude Tests, Physicals, and Eye examinations and then in May of my senior year of high school, I got word that I wouldn't be going. So, I went to Texas Tech instead.

We weren't talking about war, or military service; we were talking about looking at different schools of thought on taxable contributions to the government, and how they affect the poor and middle class very differently than they do the wealthy.

I noted that other contributions to the government, specifically military service, also unfairly burden the poor and middle class, while the wealthy don't seem to make a similarly proportional patriotic contribution in defense of our country.

You and I have more alike than I thought. Largely through parental pressure, after a vigorous competition, I won a Congressional Appointment to the Air Force academy in 1979. For ridiculous reasons, I foolishly turned it down. 2 1/2 years later, I joined the US Army as an enlisted soldier.

 

[bullados]

In America today there is absolutely ZERO excuse for not succeeding.

Excuse me while I laugh myself stupid at this ignorant statement.

 

[PokeDad]

Excuse me while I laugh myself stupid at this ignorant statement.

At the risk of being accused of negative campaigning on behalf of Sen. Obama; here's something to laugh at:

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

 

[Boofu]

I commend you for your political action. I have worked winning and losing campaigns, and have felt better for my effort than for my donations and votes ('though all are important).

The tax rate for a $50,000 income household is already 15%. You are just suggesting that the wealthy have their tax rate reduced.

Many wealthy households do no work for their money, merely benefit from investment income. Currently, he tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. You are just suggesting that the poor have their tax rate increased.

I just threw out an arbitrary number, I won't even pretend to know the numbers well enough to give a good assessment of what rate would be necessary in this scenario.

This progressive adjustment would mean that the actual taxes would be:

$50,000 - 8% - $6,000 discretionary income
$250,000 - 1.6% - $246,000 discretionary income
$5,000,000 - 0.08% - $4,996,000 discretionary income

That doesn't seem any better to me.

I assume this is referring to the fair-tax? The progressive adjustment that you applied does not include any expenditures in discretionary income. The discretionary income is the amount that would be taxed the MOST. Since the rich have a higher discretionary income and tend to flauntingly spend it, the number would be much better than your quick analysis here. I have heard (not necessarily having the facts to back this up) that the fair-tax is the most researched economic subject ever.

 

[Dr. Mason]

Earlier in this thread I also pointed out that people shouldn't starve to death. You are listing very extreme and fringe examples. Obama's tax plan paints with the largest brush including everything in between.

Justice (n); judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments

Rights are those given by God and guaranteed by our government. We do not have the right to a job. We do not have a right to steal from someone to give to someone else who doesn't even need it (Obama's broad brush plan in any other form would be called plunder). We do not have a right to income. We do not have a right to happiness, only the right to pursue it. Rewards and punishments imply the act of earning. In America today there is absolutely ZERO excuse for not succeeding, outside of uncontrollable handicaps. So I have little sympathy for those who have made poor choices in their life and expect everyone else to take up the slack for them.


Are you blind, or do you just not know how to read? Maybe you should read what you quoted from my previous post, you will find your answer to this. I guarantee it.

and based on the symbol behind feraligatr on your avatar, I doubt we will ever get past the proletariat vs bourgeois argument so it is probably best that we end it here.

I keep telling myself I'm not going to keep going but I keep pulling myself back in...


Well then, I guess we hit the first bump in your argument here---not everyone, myself included, believes in a God, and it is not your right to define our justice system by your religion. I'd love you to sit here and say these things to somebody who barely makes it. Like my uncle for example. He has worked for most of his life to survive and as a result is badly scarred and dealing with cataracts in both eyes, various infections and a terminal heart disease, and this is all because he could not even scrape enough money to get any real treatment. Even though he is disabled he is denied welfare or any sort of protection. I wonder how that feels. I guess, under your standards, it's his fault that he had to destroy himself to make a decent living. ZERO excuse right? You are obviously very misinformed. I don't know your history to be fair Boofu, but I've seen the way it really is and it's nowhere near as rosy as you make it out to be. It wasn't a poor choice that my grandmother died at an early age and my mother and her brothers and sisters were split up and essentially left to their own. There are people who make poor choices, yes. But most of these people were making mistakes, as many people do. It's just whenever you make a mistake, there's less at stake for you.

No, I did not find an answer.

You just took what is an obvious joke for being completely serious. Excuse me for having a sense of irony. The USSR was a despicable affair. If anyone besides you thought I was REALLY serious, I would have been mobbed at the tournaments I promoted the team and its logo.

 

[PokeDad]

Originally Posted by PokeDad
I commend you for your political action. I have worked winning and losing campaigns, and have felt better for my effort than for my donations and votes ('though all are important).

The tax rate for a $50,000 income household is already 15%. You are just suggesting that the wealthy have their tax rate reduced.

Many wealthy households do no work for their money, merely benefit from investment income. Currently, he tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. You are just suggesting that the poor have their tax rate increased.

I just threw out an arbitrary number, I won't even pretend to know the numbers well enough to give a good assessment of what rate would be necessary in this scenario.

I am sure that together, looking at the issue of taxation from opposing views, we could come up with a fairer, and flat-er tax code, eliminating loopholes that benefit only the wealthy, while maintaining a degree of progressiveness, deductions, and exemptions. With give and take from both sides, with an eye to meeting the budgetary needs of the country. I imagine that we both believe government spending needs to be curtailed, although I am confident that we would disagree with where to cut. I also believe that we need to pay down our massive debt, balancing the budget with the surplus dedicated to fiscal solvency; you may agree with this bit of conservatism.

I must say, I prefer this, your first tax model, with adjustments such as some progression for higher incomes combined with loophole elimination and a rebate for lower income earners, to your second model.

This progressive adjustment would mean that the actual taxes would be:

$50,000 - 8% - $6,000 discretionary income
$250,000 - 1.6% - $246,000 discretionary income
$5,000,000 - 0.08% - $4,996,000 discretionary income

That doesn't seem any better to me.

I assume this is referring to the fair-tax? The progressive adjustment that you applied does not include any expenditures in discretionary income. The discretionary income is the amount that would be taxed the MOST. Since the rich have a higher discretionary income and tend to flauntingly spend it, the number would be much better than your quick analysis here. I have heard (not necessarily having the facts to back this up) that the fair-tax is the most researched economic subject ever.

This fair tax just seems horribly unfair.

The elimination of capital gains taxes means that the wealthy $5,000,000 income investor has $4,996,000 to invest in the market, and pays no taxes on the income generated. As many $5,000,000 income folks see their income from investment, this is a spiraling non taxed wealth multiplier for non working elites.

It is entirely possible that I am mistaken, I have never earned $5,000,000 in a year for my work, so I am not as knowledgeable as I should be.

 

[Boofu]

I keep telling myself I'm not going to keep going but I keep pulling myself back in...


Well then, I guess we hit the first bump in your argument here---not everyone, myself included, believes in a God, and it is not your right to define our justice system by your religion.

Fine, then call it natural rights if you want. It comes to the same conclusion. I don't feel like having a debate about vernacular or diction.

I'd love you to sit here and say these things to somebody who barely makes it. Like my uncle for example. He has worked for most of his life to survive and as a result is badly scarred and dealing with cataracts in both eyes, various infections and a terminal heart disease, and this is all because he could not even scrape enough money to get any real treatment. Even though he is disabled he is denied welfare or any sort of protection. I wonder how that feels. I guess, under your standards, it's his fault that he had to destroy himself to make a decent living. ZERO excuse right? You are obviously very misinformed. I don't know your history to be fair Boofu, but I've seen the way it really is and it's nowhere near as rosy as you make it out to be. It wasn't a poor choice that my grandmother died at an early age and my mother and her brothers and sisters were split up and essentially left to their own. There are people who make poor choices, yes. But most of these people were making mistakes, as many people do. It's just whenever you make a mistake, there's less at stake for you.

Yet again, you are using very extreme and fringe examples. My qualms with the Obama tax plan is that it ASSUMES need, and then exercises liberty in taking someone's wealth and giving it to others. You keep pointing to extreme examples, but fail to answer my real issue with his policy. If a family makes 100k a year, should we really be taking money from somebody and giving this family that check? Seriously... I am debating the broad brush strokes, and you are debating extreme examples.

No, I did not find an answer.

Fine, I will point it out.

"I think you have a misconception about me and other conservatives that we are somehow against charity, sharing, volunteering, good deeds, etc. You will find some of the most charitable people are conservatives (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html). Stop being charitable with other people's money."

Helping others does not need to include the government.

You just took what is an obvious joke for being completely serious. Excuse me for having a sense of irony. The USSR was a despicable affair. If anyone besides you thought I was REALLY serious, I would have been mobbed at the tournaments I promoted the team and its logo.

I assume this is about the logo. I'm sure you can understand how I would come to the conclusion given the current context of our discussion and the presence of that symbol in your avatar.

 

[Dr. Mason]

Yet again, you are using very extreme and fringe examples. My qualms with the Obama tax plan is that it ASSUMES need, and then exercises liberty in taking someone's wealth and giving it to others. You keep pointing to extreme examples, but fail to answer my real issue with his policy. If a family makes 100k a year, should we really be taking money from somebody and giving this family that check? Seriously... I am debating the broad brush strokes, and you are debating extreme examples.



Fine, I will point it out.

"I think you have a misconception about me and other conservatives that we are somehow against charity, sharing, volunteering, good deeds, etc. You will find some of the most charitable people are conservatives (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html). Stop being charitable with other people's money."

Helping others does not need to include the government.



I assume this is about the logo. I'm sure you can understand how I would come to the conclusion given the current context of our discussion and the presence of that symbol in your avatar.

Actually, you underlined the amount that my family's income is, and they, in this time, are having trouble getting by. In any case, plans need to be broad to be assured of success, because there are sometimes circumstances against them. Is anyone making 250k really going to miss the money? That much? I've been on the high road, my family once made close to that amount, and we had leftover money. Except we had characters like my father, who never wanted to be a charity for anyone, even his wife's family. Some people, I'm afraid, are rather self centered and not likely to opt for charity, even though it would barely affect them.

Since the conservatives tend to be the people with more money, this does not surprise me. Being charitable wiht other people's money is how taxes have always worked. It never went any other way. If the rich want tax cuts, how about more tax cuts for the lower class?

Of course, I just thought it would be common sense. I think if anyone thought I was being serious, I'd be banned.


Really, I'm not so Socialist I'd suggest that we eliminate classes--because there will always be rich and poor people--but the rich people have money in excess, that they do not need. If you are stuck on a deserted island with five people, and one man is taking all the food, you're going to make him share, one way or the other.