FireChan Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Why do you think I disagree with it? 10% on folks who make $18k a year? You seemed to have an issue about that before.
Dorkington Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 10% on folks who make $18k a year? You seemed to have an issue about that before. Not a lot different than the way it is now, but with deductions, and credits, and all that, it ends up being significantly less. Since Sanders didn't mention anything about overhauling those parts of the tax code, I assume it's all still in place. But yes, generally speaking, I'd like to see the lower classes taxed less, and the upper classes taxed more. So take it however you'd like.
Chef Jim Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 I appreciate the civility of your response, but I disagree with most of what you're saying. While there's plenty that the federal government can do in terms of enforcing standards and offering assistance, I believe that much of what they do is unnecessary because there are many government departments in each state that already provide specific forms of assistance that people need. We just don't need the redundancy. With regard to "generating prosperity", what exactly do the feds do? Lower taxes in order to lessen the burden placed on business, both large and small? Provide Enterprise Zones, in order to foment a the creation of stronger local economies in depressed areas? Increase the amount of low-interest loans for enterprising entrepreneurs? Reduce regulatory compliance in order to make starting and running a business less onerous? From my point of view, the federal government does just the opposite. We can have an honest disagreement on the fundamentals of government involvement and the impact that it has on our lives, but there's just too much redundancy. Many things are best left to the individual states, and don't need to be included in the ever-growing influence Washington has in our lives. If the feds were capable of doing all this without coming up short in their budgets every year, more people might be inclined to agree with your point of view, but when we're nearing a debt level of 20 trillion dollars, eliminating unnecessary agencies and projects only seems like good sense. And I agree that most of these should be handled at the state level. The purpose of States Rights was to allow each individual state to make decisions on how these things were handled vs the federal government that way if a citizen disagreed with how they were governed they could just pack up and move to another state vs leaving the country altogether.
Tiberius Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 And I agree that most of these should be handled at the state level. The purpose of States Rights was to allow each individual state to make decisions on how these things were handled vs the federal government that way if a citizen disagreed with how they were governed they could just pack up and move to another state vs leaving the country altogether. What??
keepthefaith Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) Flat tax - comical. I am guessing most everyone here on this board would pay more in taxes and the very wealthy would pay less....of course you would have more skin in the game...so there is that. The rich and corporations have so much skin in the in fact - that they pretty much write all the legislation that goes through our state and federal governments. A flat tax that would be revenue neutral - or seemingly balance the budget - would crush the economy. Flat taxes simply don't work - wonder why rich republicans always come up with that idea.... Care to explain why flat taxes don't work? Here in Illinois we have a flat state income tax. The previous governor raised the income tax rate by 60% before he would lift a finger to cut one dime out of the state's bloated budget. He ran for re-election and lost to a Republican who ran on keeping taxes lower and cleaning up the state budget. With a progressive tax we may have never gotten the election outcome this state badly needed. Since everyone was affected in the same way, voters all had the same motivation. Edited January 18, 2016 by keepthefaith
Azalin Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 And I agree that most of these should be handled at the state level. The purpose of States Rights was to allow each individual state to make decisions on how these things were handled vs the federal government that way if a citizen disagreed with how they were governed they could just pack up and move to another state vs leaving the country altogether. You're exactly right. The purpose of the federal government is to defend the nation and provide for the general welfare. The problem is that "provide for the general welfare" has taken on a whole different meaning than when originally conceived.
Tiberius Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 You're exactly right. The purpose of the federal government is to defend the nation and provide for the general welfare. The problem is that "provide for the general welfare" has taken on a whole different meaning than when originally conceived. Yes, we do have different values and morals than the founding fathers. It's MLK day and the federal civil rights act of 1964 was something he pushed for and accomplish. Thanks to the federal government blacks are not treated as second class citizens any more. If things had been left to the states Medicare would never have passed either and all those old angry Trump voters in the southern states wouldnt be alive or healthy as no southern states would ever have given their elderly health care. The Federal government did that and now being old doesn't mean you have to be poor like it used to be
Azalin Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Yes, we do have different values and morals than the founding fathers. It's MLK day and the federal civil rights act of 1964 was something he pushed for and accomplish. Thanks to the federal government blacks are not treated as second class citizens any more. If things had been left to the states Medicare would never have passed either and all those old angry Trump voters in the southern states wouldnt be alive or healthy as no southern states would ever have given their elderly health care. The Federal government did that and now being old doesn't mean you have to be poor like it used to be How do you know medicare wouldn't have been passed? Remember that it was voted into law by Congress in 1965 - in other words, it was mutually agreed upon by a majority of states, not implemented by federal decree. And of you're going to credit the federal government for civil rights for African Americans, I'd remind you that the republican party itself was founded in part by abolitionists, and it was the republicans that were responsible for the civil rights act.
Tiberius Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 How do you know medicare wouldn't have been passed? Remember that it was voted into law by Congress in 1965 - in other words, it was mutually agreed upon by a majority of states, not implemented by federal decree. And of you're going to credit the federal government for civil rights for African Americans, I'd remind you that the republican party itself was founded in part by abolitionists, and it was the republicans that were responsible for the civil rights act.Yes, with Conservatives like Reagan calling it socialism and the southern states fighting in congress tooth and nail to stop it. This Republican party is now the party of the South. It's not the same Republican party Lincoln founded. The southern strategy this Republican party follows is not the party of the civil rights movement. Political parties are always changing. Question, do you interpret the bible literally and believe it's the actual word of God?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Do asshats make you queasy? Depends on the fit.
Azalin Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Yes, with Conservatives like Reagan calling it socialism and the southern states fighting in congress tooth and nail to stop it. This Republican party is now the party of the South. It's not the same Republican party Lincoln founded. The southern strategy this Republican party follows is not the party of the civil rights movement. Political parties are always changing. Question, do you interpret the bible literally and believe it's the actual word of God? Socialists here would call it socialism too, if it wasn't so unpopular to be associated with socialism. Bernie's taking care of that though, so there won't be much need to remain in the closet much longer. I don't see how my biblical beliefs are relevant, but for the record, I do not take much of anything from its passages literally. Depends on the fit.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 I'm still waiting for a moral justification for confiscating 52% of anyone's earnings over 10m.
Dorkington Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 What percentage do you consider to be moral?
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 What percentage do you consider to be moral?It doesn't work that way. You've expressed support for a proposed tax code. Justify confiscating 52% (at the federal level only) of someone's earnings.
Azalin Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 I'm still waiting for a moral justification for confiscating 52% of anyone's earnings over 10m. To be honest, I can't see a justification for anything over 20% at most, and that's only with regard to progressive taxation (which I oppose anyway). 10% of every dollar earned in the US is a hell of a lot of money, and I see no justification for the federal tax rate to ever exceed that.
starrymessenger Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 What percentage do you consider to be moral? Anything north of 50% and I start tearing up the cobblestones.
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 What percentage do you consider to be moral? Zero.
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 It doesn't work that way. You've expressed support for a proposed tax code. Justify confiscating 52% (at the federal level only) of someone's earnings. I'm a bit mixed on the 'morality' of taxes. I think they are a necessary 'evil' for a functioning society. Since I support social programs that support the poorer classes, it only makes sense that the money for it would need to come from the higher classes and/or larger businesses, since they're the ones that can afford it. Is that moral? In my book, yes. Not everyone is born with the same opportunity, not everyone is born with the same gifts, and not everyone makes the right choices. Compassion and empathy tell me that those people don't necessarily deserve to suffer, and that there should be a minimum standard of living provided. Personally, I have no problem with my taxes being a bit higher, if it means a family can feed themselves, or if a kid can go to college that otherwise couldn't. I firmly believe that when the lower classes are brought up and empowered, it makes for a better society overall. I also believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So yes, 52% for over $10mil is fine by me, considering what it could potentially go towards. To be clear I don't believe there should be zero wage differential between different jobs, but I also don't think the current imbalance is sustainable.
Recommended Posts