IDBillzFan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 You not following along. Please follow thread In other words, you have no idea what the phuck you're talking about. Again. Get out of your momma's basement and look around. You'll never find a land with so many people who are more comfortable and more healthy. I'll grant you that most people are not happy right now, but 7 years of Barry was predictably going to take its toll on the American psyche. When you're constantly being told what is wrong, and never given the slightest genuine message of optimism, and spend all your time blaming someone else for all the problems in the country before cancelling people's weddings so you can play a round of golf, then yeah...no one should be surprised when 71% of the country don't like current the state of the union. A huge percentage of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is heading, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. Seventy-one percent of voters told pollsters they are "dissatisfied" with the way things are going. That includes 41 percent who are "very dissatisfied."
TH3 Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) In other words, you have no idea what the phuck you're talking about. Again. Get out of your momma's basement and look around. You'll never find a land with so many people who are more comfortable and more healthy. I'll grant you that most people are not happy right now, but 7 years of Barry was predictably going to take its toll on the American psyche. When you're constantly being told what is wrong, and never given the slightest genuine message of optimism, and spend all your time blaming someone else for all the problems in the country before cancelling people's weddings so you can play a round of golf, then yeah...no one should be surprised when 71% of the country don't like current the state of the union. "Only 2 percent of respondents said they were "very satisfied," while 26 percent are "somewhat satisfied." Wonder who those 2 percent are..... Edited January 19, 2016 by baskin
Chef Jim Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 You not following along. Please follow thread Sorry son I went back and found my answer. And this is what you said: So I don't know exactly the proportion, but the gap between rich and poor sure would increase So when you said only a small portion of the population was comfortable, healthy and happy you were making **** up. Did I get that right?
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Sorry son I went back and found my answer. And this is what you said: So I don't know exactly the proportion, but the gap between rich and poor sure would increase So when you said only a small portion of the population was comfortable, healthy and happy you were making **** up. Did I get that right? Yes. Yes you did.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Still no moral arguments in favor of the confiscation of 52% of earnings; though there have been many more arguments in favor of helping the disadvantaged. Dorkington, reaching deep into the Rodenberry socialist bag, even quoted Mr. Spock. Guys, try to focus: make a moral argument in favor of confiscating more than 50% of a portion of someone's earnings.
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Like I said, I believe in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and that we have a social responsibility to pay taxes, especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes. So a tax rate of 52% fits *my* morals (which have been determined to be Un-American, now), if that's what's needed to have the social programs necessary to ensure a minimum standard of living in the US. I understand that I'm in the minority here.
B-Man Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Like I said, I believe in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and that we have a social responsibility to pay taxes, especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes. So a tax rate of 52% fits *my* morals (which have been determined to be Un-American, now), if that's what's needed to have the social programs necessary to ensure a minimum standard of living in the US. I understand that I'm in the minority here. Most of your response comes across as reasoned and thoughtful, but I would really like you to consider how your inclusion of this phrase; especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes sounds to the majority of ALL Americans. Besides it's inaccuracy, it is simply an excuse to allow for any rate of tax, excessive or not, because it is "deserved" .
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 In other words, you have no idea what the phuck you're talking about. Again. Get out of your momma's basement and look around. You'll never find a land with so many people who are more comfortable and more healthy. I'll grant you that most people are not happy right now, but 7 years of Barry was predictably going to take its toll on the American psyche. When you're constantly being told what is wrong, and never given the slightest genuine message of optimism, and spend all your time blaming someone else for all the problems in the country before cancelling people's weddings so you can play a round of golf, then yeah...no one should be surprised when 71% of the country don't like current the state of the union. A lot of interesting numbers in the polls at the link. American voters support 61 - 34 percent "major new spending by the federal government" to help students pay tuition at public colleges. Voters oppose 51 - 41 percent cutting off federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Obama Approval - 45/53 Republican Congress Approval - 12/81 Democratic Congress Approval - 27/66 Republican favorability - 31/58 Democratic favorability - 40/50 Shutdown blame - 41 republican congress, 33 Obama/Dems Basically we hate all of our elected officials, and a surprising amount of people support an easier path to college education. Most of your response comes across as reasoned and thoughtful, but I would really like you to consider how your inclusion of this phrase; especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes sounds to the majority of ALL Americans. Besides it's inaccuracy, it is simply an excuse to allow for any rate of tax, excessive or not, because it is "deserved" . Well, luckily for you, I don't have voting representation in Congress, so you'll be happy to know that my opinion is pretty worthless.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Like I said, I believe in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and that we have a social responsibility to pay taxes, especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes. So a tax rate of 52% fits *my* morals (which have been determined to be Un-American, now), if that's what's needed to have the social programs necessary to ensure a minimum standard of living in the US. I understand that I'm in the minority here.You still haven't made a moral argument in favor of a tax rate of 52%. What is the moral justification for taking 52% of someone's earnings from them. It's a very simple request.
Chef Jim Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Like I said, I believe in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and that we have a social responsibility to pay taxes, especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes. So a tax rate of 52% fits *my* morals (which have been determined to be Un-American, now), if that's what's needed to have the social programs necessary to ensure a minimum standard of living in the US. I understand that I'm in the minority here. What about those that take advantage of the system and don't work because they don't have to. Who's backs are they earning their living on?
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 You still haven't made a moral argument in favor of a tax rate of 52%. What is the moral justification for taking 52% of someone's earnings from them. It's a very simple request. I've answered a couple of times already. What about those that take advantage of the system and don't work because they don't have to. Who's backs are they earning their living on? My morals say that the people who choose not to work, still don't deserve to be homeless, and starving. Whatever minimal 'earnings' gets from government assistance isn't exactly the high life. All social safety nets, whether used by well meaning people, or not, are 'earned' on the backs of tax payers. In a progressive tax model, that means the backs of the rich.... who earn their money on the backs of the poor anyways. The circle of life, if you will.
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) I've answered a couple of times already. My morals say that the people who choose not to work, still don't deserve to be homeless, and starving. Whatever minimal 'earnings' gets from government assistance isn't exactly the high life. All social safety nets, whether used by well meaning people, or not, are 'earned' on the backs of tax payers. In a progressive tax model, that means the backs of the rich.... who earn their money on the backs of the poor anyways. The circle of life, if you will. I believe I know what Tasker's trying to get at. Is your argument for 52% taxation of the rich that you feel they have a responsibility to the poor, and you feel so strongly about this that you are willing to force them at gunpoint to hand over ~50% of their income to distribute as you see fit? A Robin Hood-type? Ends justify the means? Edited January 19, 2016 by FireChan
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Ends justify the means. Again, I stop well short of the idea that everyone should have the same, and be rewarded equally for their work. But I also, at the same time, believe that we have enough collective wealth and resources that we can ensure a certain minimum standard of living. There is plenty of wiggle room in between the extremes of economies and politics to figure out the right balance.
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Ends justify the means. Again, I stop well short of the idea that everyone should have the same, and be rewarded equally for their work. But I also, at the same time, believe that we have enough collective wealth and resources that we can ensure a certain minimum standard of living. There is plenty of wiggle room in between the extremes of economies and politics to figure out the right balance. If you saw Bill Gates' wife walking down the street, would you steal her purse to give it to the homeless?
Chef Jim Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 I've answered a couple of times already. My morals say that the people who choose not to work, still don't deserve to be homeless, and starving. Whatever minimal 'earnings' gets from government assistance isn't exactly the high life. All social safety nets, whether used by well meaning people, or not, are 'earned' on the backs of tax payers. In a progressive tax model, that means the backs of the rich.... who earn their money on the backs of the poor anyways. The circle of life, if you will. Seriously?? So much wrong with this post. People who choose not to work absolutely deserve to be homeless and starve. Mean as that sounds you get what you choose. Those social safety nets are not for those that choose not to work they are for those that cannot work either due to a physical/mental disability or short term misfortune. And by in one sentence you say backs of taxpayers followed by a sentence backs of rich you make it sound like the rich are the only ones paying taxes. Those that choose not to work are living on the back of pretty much all those that choose to work.
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) If you saw Bill Gates' wife walking down the street, would you steal her purse to give it to the homeless? If it were decided by our elected representatives, who we voted in, that Bill Gates' wife's purse should be stolen and given to the homeless, then I guess so be it. Though, I think that's a pretty messy way to apply wealth re-distribution for the sake of improving society as a whole. Seriously?? So much wrong with this post. People who choose not to work absolutely deserve to be homeless and starve. Mean as that sounds you get what you choose. Those social safety nets are not for those that choose not to work they are for those that cannot work either due to a physical/mental disability or short term misfortune. And by in one sentence you say backs of taxpayers followed by a sentence backs of rich you make it sound like the rich are the only ones paying taxes. Those that choose not to work are living on the back of pretty much all those that choose to work. And there's our fundamental difference. I think people should be encouraged to work, and be productive. But I'm not about to subscribe a death sentence to those that don't want to work. I'm also not about to reward them with anything more than a bunk bed in a homeless shelter, and some pretty basic meals. Edited January 19, 2016 by Dorkington
starrymessenger Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 One argument would be that "punitive" rates of tax can be justfied only in times of legitimate national emergency. The government confiscates, expropriates and requisitions private property in time of war for example. The trick is arriving at a consensus on what constitutes a "punitive rate" and a "national emergency". I guess the politicians ultimately inform us. One characteristic of a national emergency is that it is by its nature temporary. Once it passes punitive taxes too should be in the rear view mirror. In Canada (and in other British dominions) the Income Tax Act was introduced in Parliament and passed in 1917 as a "temporary" war measure. Didn't quite work out that way tho.
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 One argument would be that "punitive" rates of tax can be justfied only in times of legitimate national emergency. The government confiscates, expropriates and requisitions private property in time of war for example. The trick is arriving at a consensus on what constitutes a "punitive rate" and a "national emergency". I guess the politicians ultimately inform us. One characteristic of a national emergency is that it is by its nature temporary. Once it passes punitive taxes too should be in the rear view mirror. In Canada (and in other British dominions) the Income Tax Act was introduced in Parliament and passed in 1917 as a "temporary" war measure. Didn't quite work out that way tho. A lot of folks determine all taxes to be 'punitive'. It's tough to come up with a number that is a consensus not a punishment.
Azalin Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Like I said, I believe in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and that we have a social responsibility to pay taxes, especially as we earn more on the backs of the lower classes . So a tax rate of 52% fits *my* morals (which have been determined to be Un-American, now), if that's what's needed to have the social programs necessary to ensure a minimum standard of living in the US. I understand that I'm in the minority here. With all due respect, how do we - any of us - earn more on the backs of the lower classes? It's obvious that you believe that in order to have wealthy people, we conversely have to have poor people since the wealthy ones got their money from somewhere. It does not work that way. Economics is not a zero sum game. You can not have a free market, capitalist democracy if you are taxing so much that you're supporting some kind of minimum financial lifestyle, let alone what you're doing to kill the incentive for people to do anything other than hang out and collect their minimum standard of living. I've answered a couple of times already. My morals say that the people who choose not to work, still don't deserve to be homeless, and starving. Whatever minimal 'earnings' gets from government assistance isn't exactly the high life. All social safety nets, whether used by well meaning people, or not, are 'earned' on the backs of tax payers. In a progressive tax model, that means the backs of the rich.... who earn their money on the backs of the poor anyways. The circle of life, if you will. Sorry, but this is completely backwards. You aren't earning a thing if all you're doing is collecting a government check, period. If it's necessary to survive upon, then you're receiving assistance. If you're collecting it in the name of maintaining some kind of 'minimum standard of living', then you're freeloading, gaming the system, and cheating hard-working taxpayers out of their own gains. And the rich do not earn their money off the backs of anyone. They receive it from people buying their goods and services, or from other enterprises and endeavors. Your characterization of wealthy Americans is largely incorrect, insulting, and shows a prejudice in the way that you view them.
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) If it were decided by our elected representatives, who we voted in, that Bill Gates' wife's purse should be stolen and given to the homeless, then I guess so be it. Though, I think that's a pretty messy way to apply wealth re-distribution for the sake of improving society as a whole. WRONG. You're the one who voted in those elected representatives. You are at fault here. This cognitive dissonance of "it's the government, not me" is a major problem. You believe that just because other folks vote that way, you aren't culpable. You are. You don't have clean hands just because someone else is holding the gun. You told them to stick up the rich folks. Ignoring the obvious logistical problems, what is your moral stance on the purse snatching, if it was put to a standard popular vote? Edited January 19, 2016 by FireChan
Recommended Posts