Question for my liberal vintage friends concerning federal progams
01-16-2004, 01:23 PM
#31
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Deptford, New Jersey
Posts: 3,698
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If 20% workers make 60,000.00 per year, and 80% of workers make 50,000.00 per year, is that 80% disadvantaged?
Are the 20% who are making 10,000.00 more money the "priveledged few"?
By what standard is equality guaged? Is it when everyone has the same earnings, education, and healthcare? This seems to be the general argument I hear from the left, but I don't mean to generalize. Without having a completely communist society, (I don't mean to use that word as inflammatory, there just isn't another word) is financial equality possible-wouldn't there always be disadvantaged?(see my above example)
And if that is the standard, should it be Imposed on society through government Wealth Redistribution?
Does Equality outweigh the freedom of individual economic choice? If so, which society has more freedom? Equality/Charity imposed by government, or a free market that possesses inherent human inequalities?
Are the 20% who are making 10,000.00 more money the "priveledged few"?
By what standard is equality guaged? Is it when everyone has the same earnings, education, and healthcare? This seems to be the general argument I hear from the left, but I don't mean to generalize. Without having a completely communist society, (I don't mean to use that word as inflammatory, there just isn't another word) is financial equality possible-wouldn't there always be disadvantaged?(see my above example)
And if that is the standard, should it be Imposed on society through government Wealth Redistribution?
Does Equality outweigh the freedom of individual economic choice? If so, which society has more freedom? Equality/Charity imposed by government, or a free market that possesses inherent human inequalities?
01-16-2004, 01:25 PM
#32
Registered User
Hospitals understaffed....do they need a surgeon? I looked at the immigration site. I fall into a pretty restricted catagory. C'mon Muz, you must have some connections. How about a "not so good looking sister" that needs to be married off?
01-16-2004, 01:26 PM
#33
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Deptford, New Jersey
Posts: 3,698
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how bout this......
Even if the government stepped in today and redistributed wealth completely evenly to all people, it would not take long for the "rich" to be rich again and the poor to be poor again.
Why?
Because those "evil rich" people will make the choices and put forth the effort that made them rich in the first place. The poor will keep making the choices that made them poor in the first place.
Life is the sum total of the choices you make.
Even if the government stepped in today and redistributed wealth completely evenly to all people, it would not take long for the "rich" to be rich again and the poor to be poor again.
Why?
Because those "evil rich" people will make the choices and put forth the effort that made them rich in the first place. The poor will keep making the choices that made them poor in the first place.
Life is the sum total of the choices you make.
01-16-2004, 01:57 PM
#34
Registered User
Charlie,
I agree and disagree with you. First off, most know my story so I won't bother reiterating it. Needless to say, anyone can do ANYTHING they set their mind to. It simply is a matter of sacrifice. How much is getting ahead financially or making your life worth something to you, is the question. Those who remain on the public dole (no not the ones that use it as a temporary crutch) do so b/c they are UNWILLING to sacrifice. If I had a dime for every excuse I've heard from people I grew up on why they didn't go to college, my HIGH INTEREST school loans would be paid for. Its not a matter of race, nor upbringing because people from horrible backrounds have made it while those with silver spoons have fallen. It is a matter of sacrifice. Too many people are willing to sit back, make and excuse and do nothing. Like my grandad used to say.."shoulda, woulda and coulda never got nuthin' done". Now, with that said, do I believe that public assistance programs should be eliminated...NO. If used, as they were intended, as a temporary crutch then there is not a problem. The problem is when assistance programs become a subsstitute for personal industry. The leftist views that have permeated this society since the god forsaken 60's has turned us into a society of enablers. It is now ok to fail and blame someone else. Personal responsibility, as a moral, is almost lost.
All animals are created equal, some are more equal than others.
I agree and disagree with you. First off, most know my story so I won't bother reiterating it. Needless to say, anyone can do ANYTHING they set their mind to. It simply is a matter of sacrifice. How much is getting ahead financially or making your life worth something to you, is the question. Those who remain on the public dole (no not the ones that use it as a temporary crutch) do so b/c they are UNWILLING to sacrifice. If I had a dime for every excuse I've heard from people I grew up on why they didn't go to college, my HIGH INTEREST school loans would be paid for. Its not a matter of race, nor upbringing because people from horrible backrounds have made it while those with silver spoons have fallen. It is a matter of sacrifice. Too many people are willing to sit back, make and excuse and do nothing. Like my grandad used to say.."shoulda, woulda and coulda never got nuthin' done". Now, with that said, do I believe that public assistance programs should be eliminated...NO. If used, as they were intended, as a temporary crutch then there is not a problem. The problem is when assistance programs become a subsstitute for personal industry. The leftist views that have permeated this society since the god forsaken 60's has turned us into a society of enablers. It is now ok to fail and blame someone else. Personal responsibility, as a moral, is almost lost.
All animals are created equal, some are more equal than others.
01-16-2004, 02:02 PM
#36
Registered User
LOL...thanks for looking out for me. I have a gorgeous GF, but I think she'd go for a sham marriage if we could move to Australia (the second most beautiful place on earth....next to Tx). Believe it or not, I fall into a highly skilled worker category and thus, potentially, could take a job away from an Australian. I would have to get a sponsor, and to insure I don't take a prime location, go to underserved area.
01-16-2004, 02:17 PM
#37
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always maintained the personal belief that 'rich' people don't take up any more room or resources than 'poor' or 'middle class' people. They don't use any more space on the road. They don't use any more public resources. They don't use social security or family allowances and more often than not pay for their kids education via private schools, are more given to philanthropy, usually have private health insurance, inject more money into the economy etc etc etc.
Having said that I don't think they should pay any higher tax percentage per dollar earnt than the next person.
A flat rate tax would still see 'the rich' pay their proportionately fair share of tax over and above that which those less fortunate pay.
Governments however are far too greedy for us to ever see this style of system implemented.
Take the example of an Australian worker earning over 60K a year. He/she is paying 47c in the dollar in tax. i.e. you are giving the Government almost HALF of everything you earn. Simply ludicrous (and outrageous) in my view. 52,000 - 60,000 and you pay 42 cents/dollar. These incomes are average family incomes with two people working.
Fortunately there are mechanisms available to minimise your tax if you're smart enough to look into them.
Having said that I don't think they should pay any higher tax percentage per dollar earnt than the next person.
A flat rate tax would still see 'the rich' pay their proportionately fair share of tax over and above that which those less fortunate pay.
Governments however are far too greedy for us to ever see this style of system implemented.
Take the example of an Australian worker earning over 60K a year. He/she is paying 47c in the dollar in tax. i.e. you are giving the Government almost HALF of everything you earn. Simply ludicrous (and outrageous) in my view. 52,000 - 60,000 and you pay 42 cents/dollar. These incomes are average family incomes with two people working.
Fortunately there are mechanisms available to minimise your tax if you're smart enough to look into them.
01-16-2004, 03:56 PM
#39
Administrator
I really don't think it has to do with redistribution of wealth but rather the redistribution of the tax burden. The tax code is many many thousands of pages and it's updated constantly. That fact alone naturally favors those with the resources to take advantage of it. Oh the poor tax preppers, we've wiped out entire industries before, what makes the accountants and in particular the accounting firms whose primary function is to poke holes in a law which is designed to be fair so special?
Perhaps a bit left wing, maybe even a bit socialist but fair yes.
Our friend in an earlier post with a gross income < $100K ($50K pre person roughly) paid 20% in income tax last year. His family I think represents the vast majority of the middle class.
Do I care if the guy taking home $1,000,000 a year will only take home $900,000 with a 10% flat tax? Cry me a river. I do care that the family taking home $100,000 will take home $90,000 instead of the $75 or $80,000 they do now.
The rich say it's a bad idea because it's regressive and the poor will burden more of the load? Nonsense. That will be entirely false no matter how many times it's said.
Everyone pays the same rate regardless of how much they make or spend. You buy a home, good for you, it's a good investment. No you can't deduct the mortgage on your yacht. No you don't get a special rate because you made the money on options instead of salary.
Income tax is in itself regressive, so is sales tax, property tax and every other tax which is based on a percentile. Tax is regressive.
If we must have tax then we need a system where the form is one page, everyone pays the same rate and has the same opportunities for tax relief (none). We need fewer accounting firms and more manufacturing jobs. We need industry which creates GDP not counts it. It will never happen but that doesn't mean it's not right.
Perhaps a bit left wing, maybe even a bit socialist but fair yes.
Our friend in an earlier post with a gross income < $100K ($50K pre person roughly) paid 20% in income tax last year. His family I think represents the vast majority of the middle class.
Do I care if the guy taking home $1,000,000 a year will only take home $900,000 with a 10% flat tax? Cry me a river. I do care that the family taking home $100,000 will take home $90,000 instead of the $75 or $80,000 they do now.
The rich say it's a bad idea because it's regressive and the poor will burden more of the load? Nonsense. That will be entirely false no matter how many times it's said.
Everyone pays the same rate regardless of how much they make or spend. You buy a home, good for you, it's a good investment. No you can't deduct the mortgage on your yacht. No you don't get a special rate because you made the money on options instead of salary.
Income tax is in itself regressive, so is sales tax, property tax and every other tax which is based on a percentile. Tax is regressive.
If we must have tax then we need a system where the form is one page, everyone pays the same rate and has the same opportunities for tax relief (none). We need fewer accounting firms and more manufacturing jobs. We need industry which creates GDP not counts it. It will never happen but that doesn't mean it's not right.
01-16-2004, 05:09 PM
#40
Why are you blaming accountants for a tax code that was written by Congress? Most of us don't like it either.
Just to point something out, a flat tax is regressive in the same way that a sales tax or property tax is. The rate may be the same for all, and of course the higher income earners pay more dollars, but those in the lower income brackets end up with less of the income they need to subsist.
Just to point something out, a flat tax is regressive in the same way that a sales tax or property tax is. The rate may be the same for all, and of course the higher income earners pay more dollars, but those in the lower income brackets end up with less of the income they need to subsist.
