Did you Vote?

[Basilikos]

Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?

That's what I've been trying to watch here, too. Honestly, I could care less what people's opinion of Walmart (just using them as an example) is, I just what to know what people intend to do politically. And I'm also for a flat tax rate (not amount, a RATE). I don't think anyone ought to be more responsible than the next person (percentage-wise, anyway).

[Shaden]

[quote='Redbeard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=1539 48#post153948]Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?[/quote]
I did, yes. Directly in reply to your last post in this forum, which I'm assuming you either didn't read or skimmed.

[url='http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=150722#post150722']Please read it again[/url], and let me know if I didn't accurately address something you were saying.

[Shaden]

I say 'bubble up' instead of 'trickle down'. So much of the money gets swindled by CEOs and upper management. Planes, expensive trips, yachts. I am for being rich but when it comes to taxes give the people that pay for their services some money to use.

Better yet how about a 'flat tax'. I would be all for that. The average person would pay way less in taxes and the rich would no longer have the shelters they usually use. So I guess it is kind of the same thing in the long run.

Finally, someone who agrees with me! I was beginning to wonder what that felt like.

Well, sort of. I agree with your first paragraph, but I'm not sold on the idea of a flat tax either, and here's why: Progressive taxation suggests that people should pay taxes according to their means, but a flat tax essentially means that the poor/middle class pay a disproportionate share of their income in taxes, because people in these income brackets often spend their entire paycheck and don't keep a lot in savings or other investments--needing that money instead of pay mortgages, utilities, food, etc. A nationwide flat sales tax sounds like a good idea, but there are currently people living below at the poverty line and below in this country who pay no taxes at all under our current system, but would be forced into paying in a flat sales tax system.

I think it's a much simpler system, and I think for that reason it has merit, but I also think it a dangerously oversimplified system because it actually reverses one of the very best things about our current tax system. (I'm not arguing it's not a mess, but it's not all bad, either).

[Redbeard]

I just read it again. I guess we disagree on your explanation being a "good reason" (Which, if im not brain dead after a day at work, seems to amount to "Tax them because they can afford it, not because they deserve to be taxed more," please disregard if I am misrepresenting what you said).

Please read it again[/url], and let me know if I didn't accurately address something you were saying.

[Shaden]

Please read it again[/url], and let me know if I didn't accurately address something you were saying.

[/quote]
Okay, I'm trying to make sense of this. You asked for a good reason, and I'd already given you what I consider to be a good reason. Now what you're saying is that I have to prove they deserve it as well? I'm not sure what you want. You want a religious argument on why the rich deserve to share their wealth with the less fortunate, who have less wealth to share? Do you want a moral argument? I don't think you're constructing an open discussion for me here, because basically you're just saying, "No, I don't think what you've said are good reasons'", without explaining why. Except you use that word, 'deserve'. Doesn't the very fact that they make more provide the reason as to why they deserve to be taxed more? What would be more fair? Everyone pays the exact same amount in taxes? Too low and you bankrupt the government, too high and not everyone can pay it. What about a flat rate? Everyone pays 35% of their income in taxes? Okay, so does that include everyone, of every income bracket? Even the poor who don't pay taxes now?

I guess what I want to know is: What is YOUR ideal tax situation? I know what you're railing against, but what are you for? You don't like my reasons, and I've taken time to explain them and even provide sources for you, with a ton of other related information as to why this is a good idea, to four different people on this thread. Reasons both practical and ethical (depending what kinds of reasons sway you more). But I haven't heard anything from you that suggests you have a good "fair" tax policy. And if you want your idea to be rated better than what I'm proposing (a modified version of our current system), you're going to have to tell me something besides, "I don't agree" before I'll be able to see your side of it.

You might have enjoyed the back and forth so far, and I obviously enjoy being in a discussion as well. But I'm beginning to wonder what my point is in continuing in this thread, because I don't really feel like it's a true debate, or even a discussion. I spend quite a long time crafting each post, providing backing and sources. I have been called a know-nothing with regards to economics by people on this thread, in fact my faulty understanding of things seems to come up quite often. But I am the only one in this thread consistently reinforcing my position with facts, rather than unproven assertions, opinions, and flat out lies in some cases. When my knowledge on the subject began being called into question, or when I was accused of supporting Obama merely because I'd been brainwashed or something, this became a discussion about facts, rather than just about opinions.

I supported Obama, and proudly. I think he had a far greater economic plan than McCain, and 80% of the economists of the National Bureau of Economic Research agree with me. I have made clear my positions, and I think I have been clear on what are my opinions, and the words and research of others which I think support my opinions. If you want, I can explain how I've familiarized myself with the opposing positions, but I've spent enough time on this thread providing elaborate, detailed, and researched posts rebutting point by point the positions of others. And not just one person on this thread, but four other people. Rarely do I get any kind of response to the points I raise, certainly not point by point, and often I get replies that seem to indicate that the poster isn't even reading what I posted. Usually what I get is a couple snips from my post, a few sentences (which I then rebut) and then...nothing. *crickets*

So what else is there for me to say, really? Is my position really unclear at this point, after so many explanations to so many people? Do you think I've established at this point that I made an informed decision about our future President, and wasn't just brainwashed or "stupid" for choosing as I did? Does anyone think at this point that I really don't understand basic economics, or that I do don't do my own share of reading or "edumacating" myself?

I honestly feel like the other four most vocal of you on the other side of the fence have some catching up to do, content-wise, because I have conducted a far more reasonable and well-sourced discussion at this point. I haven't just been making up statistics out of thin air. I've actually taken the time to respond to virtually every question that has been posed to me, and tailor my response directly to the person who asked me the question.

I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful, but I don't know what else I need to say at this point.

[Coltimar]

I think a big point is being missed. If someone makes a ton of money they SHOULD spread it around. To whom much is given, much is expected. But you shouldn't make anyone do anything. As my income has grown over the years the percentage of my income that I give to those less fortunate has increased. But you should not make this a government mandate. It isn't fair. More laws do not reduce crime. You cannot now, and never will be able to, legislate the heart of man.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I honestly feel like the other four most vocal of you on the other side of the fence have some catching up to do, content-wise, because I have conducted a far more reasonable and well-sourced discussion at this point.

We can all "source" until we're blue in the face. This argument is like global warming: thousands of scientists think global warming is critical to address now before we kill the planet while thousands of other scientists think global warming is the biggest scam the world has ever seen. Some of us believe government is the answer, where others believe government is the problem.

And while you claim a reasonable angle, your arguments seem to indicate a preference for taking down the top as a means of building up the bottom. I.e.: punishing success. I'm just surprised that, through all that "research," you can't see the pitfalls of making our already progressive tax system even more onerous.

As you said, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

[Tsunami]

we could discuss what a scam global warming is. how can we go from global cooling in the 70's to global warming in the 90's. And what is really so bad with global warming. I for one am all for a warmer planet. Nobody in gov't really believes global warming is real... if they did they would not try to rebuild new orleans, they would start building a wall around manhattan and no new construction would be approved for waterfront property.

the positives of global warming far outweigh the negitives. A warmer planet means longer growing seasons so we could grow more food to feed the planets population. more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means plants will grow faster. a warmer planet can support more people. Very few people will die from global warming, many rich people will lose their expensive beach front property and many poor people will find they now have waterfront property.


Was Greenland called Green Land because Iceland was already taken? no, it was actually green about 1,100 years ago when the vikings discovered it. The Dark ages weren't Dark because they didn't have electricity. It was the dark ages because the sun didn't shine that much, it's because of a mini ice age and the sky was under a constant blanket of clouds. So less food could be grown and millions of people were forced to stay inside which led to out breaks of the plague and other deadly diseases. another ice age will cause billions of people to die. So lets keep the planet as warm as possible.

The romans produce wine in England 1500 years ago, this is something they are only starting to be able to do recently again in England.

The cause of global warming is the sun.

[Hachoo]

I've been keeping up with this post and reading everything intently, and while I don't intend to get involved in the main argument here (even though I definitely support one side of it), I will say this. Those who are saying there should just be a flat tax % that applies to everyone are either very young and inexperienced, or ignorant. Go get married and have a kid or two and then come back and say that.

Taking corporations, poor people, etc OUT of equation, I'm not sure why anyone would think its "fair" to tax someone 35% of their salary, and then after they get married, have 2 kids, and their wife stops working, now they're supporting an additional 3 people, they should still get taxed 35%. LOL. If you want people to stop getting married and having kids, do that. I for one wouldn't be able to support my family at ALL if I still got taxed what I did before I was married with a child.

[Ellusionist]

I didn't vote.

Reason: People bitch no matter what president is elected. I'd rather not play a part of it. What's going to happen is going to happen.

President #1 gets elected, people bitch. Citizens claim it'd be a lot better if we had President #2.
President #2 gets elected, people bitch. Citizens claim it'd be a lot better if we had President #1.