drbrumley
Well-known member
Life isn't fair. Get over it.
toldailytopic: Are you prepared for Taxmageddon?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Life isn't fair. Get over it.
Buzzword
New member
And because life isn't fair, government should never strive to act fairly and justly?
If we applied that (lack of) philosophy to the justice system, a single local judge could sentence a shoplifter to death and a serial killer to community service.
Anybody protests?
"Life isn't fair. Get over it."
PureX
Well-known member
I'm all a-tingle. I can't wait! It's about time we take some of those rich folks money and give it to ... well, ... ME! I always knew I deserved it, now finally maybe someone else will know it, too.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm not talking about "life". We vote for those that determine government policy. If the policy isn't fair then it should be changed.
Government should be at least attempting to treat citizens fairly, not favoring the rich and well connected.
Letsargue
New member
How much did this guy give, or considers that it was ( Taken ) Away from him??? - Did this phony good guy give more than was asked of him???
Paul -- 092212
Alate_One
Well-known member
It's not the numbers, it's the rate. He paid less than 15% which is the rate only for families making less than 70,700 per year in wages (working an actual job).
It is fundamentally unfair to ask less from someone that does no actual work, than those that work for a living. Government policy is exacerbating inequality.
Also FYI "charity" is not taxes, especially not with regard to the Mormon church, which accounts for most of Romney's "charity".
Tax rates are at historic lows. In the 1950s, the top tax rate was 90%! We still had great economic growth and nobody batted an eye.
Taxes must come up, likely for everyone and they need to come up for those that can most afford them.
You do realize, unless you make most of your money from investment income, you're arguing against your own interests. Because money that doesn't come from those able to pay more, will come from the rest of us.
:baby: Oh you expect life to be fair? I guess mommy and daddy did not have that talk with you... The man made money on the money he already worked for previously, paid taxes on it, and donated to the total tune of 45% of that income, I am absolutely sure you could not say as much.
:baby: Waaaaaaaa...get a hold of yourself or at least your greed for others money.
Seems your opinion clashes with the facts...again
| An all time record of 47% of Americans are now government dependents receiving some form of government benefits. Yet virtually half of all Americans (49.5%) pay no income tax. |
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/07/the-ongoing-disgrace-that-is-obamanomics/2/
And since you love those graphs so much here is one for ya!
If this site is soooo evil why do you come on regularly to spread your form of misinformation. Stupidity as defined by a liberal (such as yourself) really does not carry much weight or is subjective at best. If it is sooooo bad here at TOL then go join one of the slow, boring, liberal sites where you can post liberal socialist drivel to hearts content and people might even agree with you...now that might be a change. The fact is you enjoy the site, and you find some sort of value in it or you would have left long ago but, your lack of charity to that which you get use of regularly is duly noted.
Yes, and your argument that this man has not paid his legal share is a bogus argument. Whether you or any other socialist agree with what is his fair share is, rather irrelevant to the fact that he fulfilled his legal duty to pay, if tax reform is what you are after look no further than taxmageddon, where we will all pay more. That's what you wanted right? :thumb:
Oh I see, you, the socialist liberal, are to decide where charitable contributions are to be made also, and how much i.e. it cannot be a charity which liberal socialists have decided is unworthy, how pompus are you?. Again, this man fulfilled his legal obligation to pay taxes did he not? Quit being so greedy Alate, he paid way more than you did, or probably ever will and where he chooses to give is his business also, even if you crazy liberals want to control that too. Get a grip on your greed and class envy...it's showing.
Alate_One
Well-known member
The man gamed the system and started with millions of dollars from his parents. It's not so hard to make money when you have a lot to start with plus you have a dad that's a CEO, a governor and well connected to people in power.
He used federal government agencies to keep his company from going bankrupt. He uses tax havens unavailable to anyone that's not a billionaire.
I'm not asking to be born rich, I'm asking for rich people to not get more breaks from the federal government than the poor and middle class. People at the bottom need help, not the rich. The rich need to earn it for themselves. Our current state of affairs is insane.
It's not greed when I want people that make more money than I do to at least pay the same percentage in taxes as I do, or go back to our historic rates when economic growth was high.
And why is that? It's because of your side favoring the rich for 20+ years. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. People can't get out of poverty so they're stuck with government subsidies. That doesn't mean they *like* using them.
Secondly you're speaking of "no income tax". Did you even bother to look at the figure/cartoon I posted? Income tax ignores payroll tax, for social security, medicare and medicaid which nearly a third of those "dependents" pay. Nevermind things like sales tax and other taxes the poor pay disproportionately on their income.
And about 4000 of those "parasites" that pay no income tax are some of the richest people in the country.
I'm here to straighten out your ignorance. Despite the fact you will likely never be convinced. There should be another side for you to confront, rather than an echo chamber of right wing talking points.
Why, because you said so? Your side is the one in alternate reality-ville.
People here do agree with me, just not you.
Nothing wrong with the site in terms of mechanics, it's great. There are good and bad people here, smart and stupid. That doesn't mean I feel the need to spend my money to keep it around. If I looked at the signal to moronic noise ratio overall I think there's more bad than good unfortunately.I never said he didn't pay what was legally required. In fact he paid more than required, to match his earlier statements about his rate.
Funny thing is he said paying more than legally required would disqualify him for office. Ooops!
But I am saying the rate is unfair and should be changed.
Yes actually I want them to go over the fiscal cliff, then come back and fix the tax code. This will be easier to do afterwards than before since there will no longer be tax cuts to hold hostage.
Might wanna pull back from that deep end, sonny. I'm simply saying that all charitable contributions are not equal in terms of societal impact. They really have nothing to do with someone's tax rate though.
Sigh. You really don't get it do you? The role of government is to create a level playing field for everyone, not to make their OUTCOMES the same, but to at least give everyone a shot at the American Dream.
I've no problem with riches legitimately earned through hard work. I have a problem when the government favors the rich over the poor and middle class. I have a problem when someone sitting on his duff drawing investment income is taxed at a lower rate than I am when my family and I work hard for our income.
We have morons like you telling us how we should be content to let the rich have all of their lovely tax breaks when a single illness could break us. Romney/Ryan tell us they're going to have to weaken that safety net because we just can't afford it. But we can afford MORE tax cuts for rich people like Romney. You are shooting yourself in the foot by supporting Republican policies, unless you're some kind of super rich person.
It begs the question, Why do people vote against their own interests?
Last edited:
IMJerusha
New member
No, but working on it.
Seeking ways of offsetting food expenditures and re-routing funds; free range chickens, feeder calves, vegetable garden.
Getting rid of vehicles associated with loan payments.
No credit accounts. House free and clear.
Going with Romney/Ryan.
I know couples who have chosen to marry in the sight of God and left the government out of it entirely.
Seeking ways of offsetting food expenditures and re-routing funds; free range chickens, feeder calves, vegetable garden.
Getting rid of vehicles associated with loan payments.
No credit accounts. House free and clear.
Going with Romney/Ryan.
I know couples who have chosen to marry in the sight of God and left the government out of it entirely.
You really should reread yourself here Alate, this is why it is obvious you have a severe case of class envy. It is irrelevant where he got his money, and you make it sound like a crime that he does or anybody for that matter...
And he is so different than the hoards of democrat politicians that have used their offices for the private gain of themselves, spouses and relatives. He is no more dirty or despicable than any of the your precious left wing politicians. The left are as hypocritical on the matter of fleecing and profiteering as anyone yet nobody seems to care about that on the left, they just follow whatever the current mantra is. Here is just two of our upstanding lefties here in CA, both despicable and both have you all buffaloed, There are many more like this on both sides sadly...
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/n...een-1-5-million-on-asian-investments-in-2011/
http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...n-her-husband-is-selling-it/question-2828309/
Let us set the record straight, the poor as you say pay no taxes at all and if you want fairness then even they should pay the same percentage as everyone else, no? I am just following your logic here. the rich already earn it for themselves and provide more money in taxes than the poor and middle combined if one was to do a dollar value. If you want to see a flat rate tax on all, I am with you and agree whole heartedly but, to try to punish those about us that have achieved or inherited more than another I disagree. Fair share i am with you, an unproportionate share is just theft.
The historic rates were theft, again I am with you on a percentage based rate regardless of income but, unproportionate is not fair as you say.
If favoring the rich means that I support a healthy economy, jobs, and low entitlement rolls than yes, this is what I favor. You say people don't like being on the government dole and I say you are mistaken, your side has made it so easy to live in that state that it is a way of life rather than a helping hand, some do not want it I will agree but, many have grown accustomed to the lifestyle and why leave it, the handout probably pays more sadly.
The rich pay no payroll tax because they will not be using Social Security, medicare and medicaid and why would you expect someone to pay for something they will never take part of, I mean you are talking "fairness" now. How is it disproportionate for the poor to pay the same taxes, "sales and and other taxes" as you called them? It is only "Fair" that they pay the same as everyone else..
:rotfl: you do make me laugh I will give you that Alate but, in "fairness" I believe I am straightening out your ignorance also, and the same echo you hear from me from the right, is the same echo I hear from you from the left, I guess that's "fair"...:chuckle:
Why, because you said so? [/QUOTE]
Yes, the same reason you think anyone including myself is stupid for their views. I think yours are stupid also so, that just makes it all "Fair" right?
People here do agree with me, just not you.
Look, we just found another point where we just even out, some agree with you and some agree with me...That is just "fair" I love it when it all works out that way.
And no lawmakers left or right are willing to make a "fair" percentage tax rate across the board. The rhetoric coming out of BHO is the same old "eat the rich" drivel which I disagree with, and you should too if you're going to be "Fair" about it, make it the same for all.
:chuckle:
O.K. as long as it is fair percentage across the board, rich and poor pay the same then I agree.
BHO just as G.W.Bush had a the opportunities to do just this type of overhaul to the tax code when they had majorities in all branches but, did either do it? No, and it is doubtful the rich congressman and senators ever will raise taxes on themselves. Do you really think that they will ever be "fair" with the tax code? Really?
Sonny? I am probably older than you missy :chuckle: and yes all charitable donations are just that charitable, I don't pick the leftist organizations you run with, as you do not pick the conservative ones I choose to support. The impact of your donations are as subjective as mine, or his in that regard, and you are correct it is not part of the rate, I simply lumped his total earnings and how much he actually banked after taxes & giving to show he kept just over half after both, which is notable anyway.
Well if that is your belief then we disagree, the government should stay the hell out of the way and allow the achievers to achieve and those that do not want to achieve do not deserve a handout outside of those who are mentally or physically incapable (yes, I do have a heart) but, if you want to sit on your duff and watch the world go by that is a persons choice but, nobody, including society owes you a darn thing. You have the right to pursue happiness it is not a guarantee, the American dream still exists for those willing to work hard for it...it's not "fair", it's not a freebee, you have to be willing to put forth the effort. What you want is everyone to have the same regardless of effort (or so it seems) and that is just "not fair".
Does it really matter how a person gets their money for cripe sakes? it is really a different argument than what the fair tax rates should be. Your class envy thing is really nasty quality...
Being that morons like you have supported this idiot we have know that has brought our nation from a fiscal crisis to the brink of bankruptcy in four short years, I believe it is you and your moronic brethren that have shot yourselves in the foot but, you want more poverty, more joblessness, more fiscal instability, more bungled domestic and international policies, and more scandals with this obvious inept amateur executive at the helm. You're a glutton for punishment that is for sure. Yes, I will take the alternative to that...
Alate_One
Well-known member
And you think I absolve them because they have a D next to their name? Half the problem in this country is the Dems are almost as bought by the rich as the Rs.
No. A progressive tax scheme is fair because 15% to a poor person is huge and would harm their ability to just survive. 15% to a Billionaire is nothing. A flat tax sounds great but is ultimately unfair to the poor. The rich should be paying their fair share an extra 5% isn't going to mean much of anything to the standard of living of someone making millions of dollars a year. They're saving most of their money anyway. The poor, by contrast, spend most all of their income.
We once had a 90% tax rate as our top rate and had huge economic growth. While I wouldn't advocate going back to that, the 40% of the 1990s shouldn't be too much to ask.
You can claim anything other than a flat tax is unfair all you like, but the American people by in large disagree with you. Even among Republicans.
There's no evidence favoring the rich with tax policy or anything else helps economic growth. There's even little evidence for tax increases hurting economic growth.
In our current state it may help. The money is stuck at the top with CEOs sitting on profits. The poor and middle class have nothing to spend because they have no jobs and low wages. No demand means companies have no reason to expand. Increasing taxes on the rich can take the money from the top and force it to be spent to hire. Government spending tends to go to the poor and middle class who spend their money, increasing demand and thus increasing economic growth.
And why does the handout pay more? Because wages have dropped into the toilet. People can't support themselves on minimum wage. But Republicans oppose raising it. They oppose unions, which help to increase wages. They oppose policies to reduce outsourcing which reduces wages and number of jobs. So ultimately you've been voting (I'm assuming) for policies that exacerbate all the problems you complain about.
Removing the safety net won't help because people can't support themselves on the wages available. Most people on government support DO work btw.
I know. It was a joke.
and I'm not a missy, I'm a married PhD thank you very much. You make a big assumption there, which is not entirely correct. Unless you consider EPC churches "leftist".
The problem is, without government intervention and/or unions "pure" market forces will lead to things like monopolies, safety problems in the workplace and consumer products, pollution in the environment etc.
The rich and powerful are always trying to get and stay on top. Government's job is to give the weak and powerless at least a hand up. If they choose not to take it, and waste their lives that's their fault. But the opportunity should be there. The problem with the American dream is it's been made unreachable even by hard work for a large proportion of society.
People born into poor areas suffer through poor schools and are unprepared for college, making them unable to succeed. A few can make it regardless, but the difficulty in the current system is extremely high. And it's due to government policy not doing it's job.
It isn't a different argument because the government CURRENTLY treats the two types of income differently. (Am I talking to a wall here?) :bang:
Government is CURRENTLY favoring one type of income with a lower tax rate than the other. The questions are linked by CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICY. The so called "buffet rule" would take care of the problem by mandating the normal percentages no matter the source of income.
Because any discussion of policy with regards to "class" is obviously "class envy". Stop drinking the kool-aid hmm?
What will you do when/if Obama wins a second term? :chuckle:
Last edited:
A lot of people are wrong about a lot of things :idunno:
Alate_One
Well-known member
And? Funny thing is America is a democracy. Smart politicians listen to their constituents or get un-elected.
When people are presented with the *current* Republican vision of America - unless they are frightened by scare tactics such as "socialism" and "Obama is a Muslim" and "Only Republicans can take care of the debt" - they choose the democratic vision every time. Social Darwinism isn't attractive to most people, nor it is remotely Christian.
A constitutional republic
I certainly don't subscribe to the "the *current* Republican vision of America" though Republicans do, at times, engage in some conservative rhetoric to sore up the base. I do agree that the more "democratic" a society becomes the more the masses will vote for the candidate who will give them more and more of other people's money. There are are too many ways to exploit people's greed for it to be otherwise.
..And this is being done to pay for Obamacare. I knew the money had to come from somewhere. It's coming right out of our wallets.
:think: You disappoint me here...I would think you would know better than this.
Quite
lain:
PureX
Well-known member
If everyone gives everyone else money, it's the same as no one giving anyone else money, except for the wasted time handing it back and forth.
What really bothers people is that they might have to give someone else some money and not get anything in return for it. They think this isn't "fair" because they can't understand that they are a part of a society, and that it's because of that society that they have ANY MONEY AT ALL. Or have anything else, for that matter. And because they don't want to see how selfish they are being, they simply close their minds to the idea that their own well-being is tied to the well being of everyone else around them.
So they cry and whine like spoiled toddlers who think someone else is taking their play-toy away.
It wouldn't be so embarrassing if they were at least complaining about the government wasting tax money on silly pork projects or pointless military escapades, but the selfishness is so complete that it's really just focussed on the idea of someone else getting something they think belongs to themselves.
Letsargue
New member
:think: You disappoint me here...I would think you would know better than this.
Quite
That's one reason that the country is lost already. He ain't the only one that is that stupid.
Paul -- 092412
Alate_One
Well-known member
Republic vs. Democracy in this context is little more than semantics. Nobody lists western democracies and then says "Oh but the US isn't a democracy." It isn't a PURE, direct democracy no, but no modern country is.
The confusion seems to stem from the founding father's definition of democracy (by which they meant little more than mob rule) vs. the modern one.
In fact a constitutional/presidential republic is included in the modern definition of democracy, it is simply a form of democracy. But you seem to be stuck in high school civics definitions rather than wanting to discuss the issues at hand. I would expect all of you to know better than this.
PureX
Well-known member
The United States is called a "democratic republic". What that means is that we are a limited democracy in that the will of the majority is limited by the rights of individuals and minorities. And it works pretty well except that these rights were not spelled out as clearly as they should have been in the beginning because the United States was the first nation in history to try this form of government, and the founders were somewhat blinded to their own human biases and shortcomings. The result being that 200+ years later we still have not exactly achieved equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all. And in fact we are currently slipping backward into inequality, exploitation, and abuse at an alarming pace.