More Taxes For All
Pepe_Muffassa
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">hehehe</div> <a href='http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm</a>
And for the text of the article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry
Mon Oct 11 2004 10:22:17 ET
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday: "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ...
"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"
END <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, very valid points. I'll vote for higher taxes too - so long as they pay up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And for the text of the article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry
Mon Oct 11 2004 10:22:17 ET
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday: "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ...
"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"
END <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, very valid points. I'll vote for higher taxes too - so long as they pay up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
If you owed 1 million in taxes, and gave 800,000 to charity, you would only owe 200,000 in taxes. now someone could take it out of context and say you only paid one fifth what was due.
I'm not saying the kerry family gives trillions to charity, i dont know how they handle the money, but i Do know that if any of it was illegal under current law the IRS would be down their throats.
If you are going to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes - go right ahead. Just don't go around trying to raise taxes for the middle class - pay them yourself first, then raise everyone elses.
Thats what I call "leading by example".
Why is that?
Why is that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, maybe not any article, but any article claming that without then saying "While saving the upper 1% friggin zillions in comparison, and then just completely screwing over the poor" but either way, saying that saving the middle class $1000 bucks was all that bill did is evidence of a certain willingness to smudge over certain facts in order to prove one's case.
I personally am glad to Bush cut taxes for the top 2%. It's not secret, the average American understands that Bush cut taxes for the wealthy, but they also understand that Bush cut their taxes as well.
No one is denying that Bush cut taxes for the rich, but the Democrats are turning this into another case of us/them again.
"Hey, let's all be hateful of the rich, because we're getting screwed over because we don't understand money!"
"Yeah, class warfare has everything to do with rich people holding down poor people, instead of being a way for middle class and poor people to feel better about their economic situation and stay slaves to the corporate pyramid."
Come on, get real. Most of the people who are in that big tax bracket deserve every penny of the money they made, and the government shouldn't be slamming them for it.
As for the article, if the Kerry's used charities to take down their taxes, all the power to 'em. However, if they didn't, it would be nice if the "defender of the little guy" actually practiced what he preached.
So what you are saying is that. I've busted my **** in high school to get into college, I then busted my **** in college to get into grad school. Now im busting my **** in grad school only to get out and be punished for all my hard work?
Please explain to me how the tax cut screwed the poor? They don't pay federal income taxes.
I agree completely with illuminex. The only fair tax cut is one across the board. A lot of the rich are rich because they work their **** off.
Yeah, like GW bush and JF Kerry...oh wait.....no I forgot, Kerry married rich (to someone who didn't earn her money either) and Bush got his dad's buddies to invest in stuff for him.
And an income tax does not always translate to class warfare, it can also be meant as merely a sound econommic move. You have to tax someone, and why not tax the rich since they have the most to spare? Then your government can pay for all the stuff it needs, and those who are struggling don't get hurt. Everone's happy. Not to mention that historically, relying on the rich to spend their money in a way that is beneficial to society as a whole has proven to be a very bad move.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So what you are saying is that. I've busted my **** in high school to get into college, I then busted my **** in college to get into grad school. Now im busting my **** in grad school only to get out and be punished for all my hard work?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is better, you (who is presumeably making oodles and oodles of cash by this point) getting punished for all your hard work, or someone who can barely make payments on their mortgage being punished for all their hard work? Someone's got to foot the bill, and it just makes more sense for the people to pay who would be hurt least by it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Please explain to me how the tax cut screwed the poor? They don't pay federal income taxes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The poor" is not such an extreme group that they are all shiftless bums who are all on welfare (which has been cut anyways). There are a lot of people in this country struggling, a lot of people who make less than they can technically live on who still pay a good chunk in taxes. You ask why should you (in this case the plural you, referring to the hypothetical upper-class you posed in your situation) be penalized because you work hard (because you obviously work so much harder behind your desk than the cleaning lady you pay minimum wage to empty your wastebasket of all the shreded papers), well I ask you why should those less fortunate be penalized because you're being selfish?
[edit] changed a few things for clarity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just in time for tax season, the Congressional Budget Office has released new data on distribution of the tax burden. Contrary to popular belief, they show that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time and that the Bush tax cut in 2001 barely kept it from rising further.
A convenient starting point is 1984. The Reagan tax cut was then fully phased in (which reduced the top statutory income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent) and the 1983 Social Security tax increase had already taken effect (which raised the OASI tax rate from a combined 9.5 percent to 10.4 percent). In that year, those in the bottom quintile (20 percent of households) paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
Those in the top quintile paid 24.5 percent, the top 10 percent paid 25.2 percent, the top 5 percent paid 26.1 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent. Thus, those at the top paid about two and a half times more than those at the bottom.
Fast forward to 2001 (latest year in the CBO study). The top statutory income tax rate has fallen to 39.1 percent, and the total payroll tax rate has risen from 14 percent to 15.3 percent. If one knew these figures in 1984, almost all economists would have projected a sharp decline in taxes paid by the rich and an increase in those paid by the poor.
In fact, the data show that those in the bottom quintile are only paying about half what they did 20 years ago: 5.4 percent. This is down from 6.4 percent just the year before, owing to the Bush tax cut.
Those in the top quintile did pay a little less in 2001 than they did in 2000: 26.8 percent versus 28 percent. But this is still well above the average tax rate they paid in 1984. Interestingly, those at the very top saw virtually no cut at all, even though liberals constantly say that they got the lion's share of the 2001 tax cut. Between 2000 and 2001, those in the top 10 percent of households saw a drop from 29.7 percent to 28.6 percent, and those in the top 5 percent saw a decline from 31.1 percent to 30.1, but those in the top 1 percent saw their effective tax rate virtually unchanged: 33.2 percent versus 33 percent.
All of those in the middle three quintiles paid less in 2001 than they paid in 1984. In other words, between 1984 and 2001 average tax rates for the wealthy substantially increased, while at least 80 percent of households paid considerably less. Progressivity rose as the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor.
Looking at the share of taxes paid shows a similar pattern. From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile reduced their share of the total tax burden from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. Among the ultra wealthy, the top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent, the top 5 percent raised their share from 28.2 percent to 38.5 percent, and that of those in the top 1 percent went up from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.
In short, the poor paid half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001 as they did in 1984, while the rich paid about 50 percent more. Those in the middle paid about a third less.
One would think that those on the left would be happy about this trend. Instead, they constantly demagogue the wealthy as deadbeats unwilling to bear their "fair share" of the tax burden, and berate the Bush tax cuts for having "slashed" taxes for the wealthy, while the rest of us pay more. As is so often the case, the truth is exactly the opposite of that portrayed in the liberal worldview.
Unfortunately, all taxpayers pay a price for the steeply graduated tax system that has evolved. A new study by economists Steven Cassou and Kevin Lansing shows that a flat rate tax would add significantly to economic growth. Published in the April issue of Economic Inquiry, it concludes that real per capita gross domestic product might rise by 0.143 percentage points per year. This may not sound like much, but it's the difference between doubling in 33 years instead of 36 years.
The Cassou-Lansing study found that flattening the marginal tax rate schedule causes most of the economic gains, which explains why tax burdens on the rich rose as their statutory rates fell. Raising statutory rates on the rich, as John Kerry proposes, likely would reverse this trend, causing taxes on the poor and middle class to rise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is better, you (who is presumeably making oodles and oodles of cash by this point) getting punished for all your hard work, or someone who can barely make payments on their mortgage being punished for all their hard work? Someone's got to foot the bill, and it just makes more sense for the people to pay who would be hurt least by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Im not allowed to live a comfortable life and provide for my children because so other idiot decided to go knock a chick up and has trouble caring for their children? What about my children and mortgage payments? Can I not send my children to college because so one else is having problems. Im sorry life is not fair.
Im for a flat tax. The government needs to learn to fix its problems instead of throwing money at them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Please explain to me how the tax cut screwed the poor? They don't pay federal income taxes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The poor" is not such an extreme group that they are all shiftless bums who are all on welfare (which has been cut anyways). There are a lot of people in this country struggling, a lot of people who make less than they can technically live on who still pay a good chunk in taxes. You ask why should you (in this case the plural you, referring to the hypothetical upper-class you posed in your situation) be penalized because you work hard (because you obviously work so much harder behind your desk than the cleaning lady you pay minimum wage to empty your wastebasket of all the shreded papers), well I ask you why should those less fortunate be penalized because you're being selfish?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you not read what you quoted? The "poor" you are refering to do not pay a federal income tax! And for those above the set line, most of them get most to all of their money back as is. So I ask you again, how does it screw the poor over?
Dont give me welfare is being cut. If the government didnt have all the money to throw at welfare, maybe they would actually fix it. I don't want to go into all that is wrong with welfare, as you can make an entire semester's class out of it. Oh wait I basically had that class.
Edited, because part of it made no sense. Hard to program and mess around of forums.
Which is better, you (who is presumeably making oodles and oodles of cash by this point) getting punished for all your hard work, or someone who can barely make payments on their mortgage being punished for all their hard work? Someone's got to foot the bill, and it just makes more sense for the people to pay who would be hurt least by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Im not allowed to live a comfortable life and provide for my children because so other idiot decided to go knock a chick up and has trouble caring for their children? What about my children and mortgage payments? Can I not send my children to college because so one else is having problems. Im sorry life is not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because, as we all know, the income tax is so high nowadays as to make heads of fortune 500 companies unable to pay their gas bills. Please. If you can't make your mortgage payments, then you don't sound like part of the upper class to me, and therefore argueing that I would want to tax you is simply a misinterpretation on your part.
And Marine, I'm not going to get into a statistics war with you. Statistical wars are useless. If I wanted to I could find stats that say anything I wanted, this is more of a debate of principles right now. And besides, taxing the poor less than Reagan or taxing the rich less than Clinton (which is all I got that Bush does from this article) is far from an accomplishment by any standard.
guess I'll have to wait another year to buy shoes <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Right, they're my mom and stepdad, the middle class, who, up until recently, did not know jack about handling money.
Hey, guess what though? My dad (my parents are divorced) is a very successful software consultant who used to work for a temp agency at 19, emptying waste baskets. He built solid relationships with people who recognized his potential and eventually landed at the now dead company Digital. Meanwhile, he was building one of the top 2% of Amway businesses in the nation, had a huge house, satellite TV, etc.
He is a college drop out, with only an Associates Degree behnid him. He is a consultant for corporations like Agilent Technologies, and is involved in a start up corporation (www.allwayson.net).
I've got middle class slave on my left (step dad) who works harder than almost anyone else I know, is dedicated to bringing money in, but isn't getting ahead. On my right I've got my dad, a businessman who works for himself and owns a very nice house in California.
And by the way, being poor is a mentality. The reality is, the "poor" in this country are broke, and so are most of the middle class. Both groups are broke, just different levels of broke.
And trust me, I've experienced broke. No, I won't go into details.
So we should only tax the rich? Why not just move to communism and have government redistribute the wealth?
Like a said, I want a flat tax. Eliminate a lot of the deductions that people can take, thus limiting the loop holes. That way everyone is paying their fair share.
That said; I remember hearing about someone proposing eliminating federal income taxes and just instituting an federal sales tax. Anyone know anymore about this?
Even if I was rich, and I worked my **** off to get there, I don't think that paying a little more than those less fortunate is wrong. Besides, giving the middle class a large tax cut will increase their spending power, in turn helping the government anyway.
Even if I was rich, and I worked my **** off to get there, I don't think that paying a little more than those less fortunate is wrong. Besides, giving the middle class a large tax cut will increase their spending power, in turn helping the government anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of their hard work, they have to support those who aren't willing to work as hard? Hell no. The government should be supporting people investing and/or starting businesses. Instead, they just send out checks. Help the starving man learn to fish, instead of just giving him some of your own. We're working to make people who are able to contribute, instead of making a bunch of whiny social parasites.
If people are unwilling to change themselves for the better and learn something new, I see no reason to support them. Let them sit in their own mire and muck, but I'll be damned to see any of my hard earned money going to help them get cable TV and beer.
If a person is willing to learn and change for the better, I support them 110 %, and am willing to put money where my mouth is. Help them pay for classes, or hook them up with some food while they're taking classes. That's what community programs are for. The government just sends checks.
And the rich feel the same way. Some of them are selfish, without a doubt, but most are simply people who made it happen. I don't see any excuse for saddling them with society's bad debt.
Since when can you afford cable on welfare? You ever try to live on welfare? It ain't much, you are not going to get any sort of good living out of welfare, and saying that the system is set up for people to live that way is simply untrue, we're not Europe here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because of their hard work, they have to support those who aren't willing to work as hard? Hell no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who here said that?
Since when can you afford cable on welfare? You ever try to live on welfare? It ain't much, you are not going to get any sort of good living out of welfare, and saying that the system is set up for people to live that way is simply untrue, we're not Europe here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because of their hard work, they have to support those who aren't willing to work as hard? Hell no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who here said that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The house across the street from me is Section 8.
Pretty much 1/3rd of the city I live in is low-income to no-income housing. Some people need it but there is terrible corruption in they system. I've seen too many people walking about wearing the latest Nike sneakers while collecting the dole to not be cynical.
Even if I was rich, and I worked my **** off to get there, I don't think that paying a little more than those less fortunate is wrong. Besides, giving the middle class a large tax cut will increase their spending power, in turn helping the government anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, thats like - your opinion, man.
What you are referring to is the "social contract", the idea that rich people "owe" society something... based purely on the perception that they "can afford it".
uh, yeah, class discrimination at it's finest - We the People are going to penalize you for being successful.
If I had my way, the rich would pay less (percentage wise) than the poor. After all, the rich are supplying jobs, they are buying things (supporting the economy), and they "usually" aren't out breaking the law and using up tax dollars.
Another huge factor in this which no one has mentioned is who uses money better - the government or the private sector. All indications I've ever seen tend to point to government being a huge waste of money. Now, what is an easy way to get money out of the governments hands and into the hands of people that use it? <b>CUT TAXES!!!</b>
@Captain Planet
You have to debate statistics - they are a representation of "facts" - without "facts" this whole discussion is meaningless. Not to mention, one of the rules of this forum is to accept the credability of sited sources - unless you can "prove" with "facts" of your own otherwise.
So there you have it - the rich pay way more than thier fair share. Democrats try to make it seem as if they don't - at the same time doing all the same tricks to get out of paying taxes.
If I had my way, the rich would pay less (percentage wise) than the poor. After all, the rich are supplying jobs, they are buying things (supporting the economy), and they "usually" aren't out breaking the law and using up tax dollars.
Another huge factor in this which no one has mentioned is who uses money better - the government or the private sector. All indications I've ever seen tend to point to government being a huge waste of money. Now, what is an easy way to get money out of the governments hands and into the hands of people that use it? <b>CUT TAXES!!!</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to disagree with you. There really is no true supporter of the economy. Each group fulfills a niche.
I would have to say that the true motivators of the economy are the middle to uppermiddle income classes.
While the 'rich' spend enormous amounts of money and do drive economies their contribution in any consumer sense is limited. Sure they purchase a lot of million dollar vehicles but that mone isn't circulated in the general economy.
Just like the fashion industry. Thousand dollar dresses shown off at extravagant shows that only the fashion/entertainment industry pays attention to and invests in. The money is in a cycle that never escapes.
It is the middle classes that purchase the cars, build the homes, buy the groceries, surf the internet in a quantity that makes it profitable to cater to them. These industries form the bulk of our economy.
edit: or not. I am no economist but it sounded good didn't it?
trickle down economics TOTALLY works too.
Ok, if you reward the succesful for being succesful, that just makes them even more greedy. This leads to the rich becoming miserly, doing everything to save money. This means they move all the jobs in the factories (or whatever) that used to be here overseas to places where labor is cheaper, meaning that OUR economy suffers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pretty much 1/3rd of the city I live in is low-income to no-income housing. Some people need it but there is terrible corruption in they system. I've seen too many people walking about wearing the latest Nike sneakers while collecting the dole to not be cynical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm going to have to disagree with you there, I've lived in my share of slums, and I've seen my share of people on unemployment, they do not live well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pretty much 1/3rd of the city I live in is low-income to no-income housing. Some people need it but there is terrible corruption in they system. I've seen too many people walking about wearing the latest Nike sneakers while collecting the dole to not be cynical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm going to have to disagree with you there, I've lived in my share of slums, and I've seen my share of people on unemployment, they do not live well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disagree all you want. I live here.
I never said they lived well. I said that many of them squander the advantages offered to them.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80834' target='_blank'>Not True</a>
No, no, no. Your argument is a logical fallicy, not to mention a gross stereotype. It does <b>not</b> follow that they all automatically become pinch-penny misers. None of your conclusions follow from the statement. If anything, logic would dictate that if you have more money to spend, you will spend more money.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80834' target='_blank'>Not True</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read that thread, and I totally disagree.
The idea comes from the "social contract" concept - and the major assumption is that people <b><i>have too / have a duty too / should be made to</i></b> support the poor. This is a flawed assumption. There is no good reason to make that assumption.
Let me sum it up (for those who haven't read the thread). Person X makes 200,000 a year, and by virtue of his huge salary, he can "afford" to pay a 50% tax - he can get by on 100,000. Person Y only makes 20,000 a year, and can not afford a 50% tax - 10,000 is way to little. Therefore, Person X should pay a higher percantage than person Y.
Using this example (understand that 50% is totally unreasonable) the common thing to do is to look at person Y and say "their poor - and X can afford it, lets tax X more" - all the while missing that Person X is already paying <b>10 X more money than person Y !!!</b>
Now, here is the kicker - Person X doesn't use any more road than person Y - doesn't use any more schools, doesn't use any more resources, doesn't use any more tax dollars, isn't a drain on the economy, isn't a drain on society.
<b>WHY SHOULD THEY PAY MORE?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--></b>
Until that question is answered (and "because they can afford it" is not an answer) I will continue to hold my opinoin: uh, yeah, class discrimination at it's finest - We the People are going to penalize you for being successful.
Fed MED/EE 15.64
Fed OASDI/EE 66.84
PA Unempl EE 0.98
PA Occ Priv 0.00
PA Withholdng 33.07
PA UPPER MERION TWP (M + SD) Occ Priv 0.00
TOTAL: 282.40
Those are my taxes. Every WEEK I pay the government nearly $300. I am sure they are putting it to a better use than I.
<b>WHY SHOULD THEY PAY MORE?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--></b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's see-- person X probably owns property. Person X is probably invested in the stock market. Person X probably has a decent amount of money in the bank. Person X probably holds a lot of capital in material goods. There is a high probability that person X owns a business, or is a well paid executive in one, etc.
Person X thus has a higher interest in maintaining a stable, free America. Let's face it-- by far, the highest percentage of your federal taxes go to pay for defense (and interest on money already spent on defense-- a little shy of 50%, if I'm not mistaken). We've seen what havoc one terrorist attack can wreak on our stock market and economy.
Person X stands to lose much more than, say, someone who works for minimum wage, rents, takes public transportation, and holds little savings and no investments (<i>maybe</i> a light 401k, but unlikely).
Consider it insurance. You want to insure more, you have to pay more. That's capitalism, for you.
(I know that's not precisely the definition of capitalism, it's meant as an expression-- Before anyone chooses to get all pedantic on me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
My entire point is that it has nothing to do with the "social contract" concept.
The government has to tax the people, and they have to try to do it fairly. The most effective model of fairness to use is to make the taxation proportional to the person's utility. This leads directly to progressive taxes.
The whole concept of "utility" spawns out of the "social contract" - The two are intrinsicly linked. How else can a government justify taxing one group of people at a higher rate than another? It is class oppression - there is nothing fair about it.
The simple fact of the matter is that wealthy people pay a higher percentage of taxes than poor people - they pay exponentially more of all the tax dollars this government takes in - and the only justification for it is that "they can afford it - so they should".
Show me some other justification - I am looking - show me. Show me the "fairness" of penalizing the wealthy. Explain to me logically why this is considered "fair".
You can't do it - because it isn't "fair".
We the People are going to penalize you for being successful.