Thread: Tax the Rich

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So when ya moving???? and the real question is where ya moving too????

Well Canada is a mere 5 countries ahead of the USA for quality of life in 2012. I'm happy with being in the top 10. I might stay here for a bit. But geeze Germany is looking sharp these days THey come in at a respectable #2 and think of all the old razors to be found?

Originally Posted by brooksie967

Nobody is saying that Glen. I just try to look at what is best for everybody. If the rich can still be rich but by sharing their wealth we can provide better quality of life to the other 95% of people, why not do it. Let's all hug a tree and sing Kumbaya, hold hands and think about the 'greater' good for once

I know you are half heartedly joking, but honestly I threw up a little in the back of my throat at that answer, because unfortunately many really believe it..

Ok gotta run guys, and go get rich from honing razors so I can share the wealth

The one critical flaw with the notion that we all follow the same tax code and the code is available to everyone is thus: The average guy follows the law and pays his taxes based on laws passed by congress. Rich people pay their taxes based on additions to the tax code authored by them and their lobbyists and paid off politicians. So, all these special deductions and credits are made for them only. If you take the stance we can all be rich then you have to also accept the old standards like all men are created equal and everyone can win the lottery and everyone can grow up to be president. Yes they are all theoretically true but practically that's another story.

Originally Posted by brooksie967

Just an interesting piece of information on Socialist countries VS Capatilist countries.
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data, which pertained to 123 countries and approximately 97 percent of the world's population. PQL variables included indicators of health, health services, demographic conditions, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, crude death rate, crude birth rate, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 30 of 36 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes (p less than .05 by two-tailed t-test). This work with the World Bank's raw data included cross-tabulations, analysis of variance, and regression techniques, which all confirmed the same conclusions. The data indicated that the socialist countries generally have achieved better PQL outcomes than the capitalist countries at equivalent levels of economic development.

~“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”~ Margaret Thacher
I don't know the answers, but it seems it would be better to lift the bottom people up than drag the top people down. I've never gotten a job from a poor person.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So when ya moving???? and the real question is where ya moving too????

Someone should remind those crossing our southern border that the real destination is Venezuela not the US.

Originally Posted by honedright

Violating 5% (forcing the wealthy to "share") to improve the quality of life for 95%, is not what is best for everybody, unless the wealthy are not considered part of "everybody."

I guess a question that only a rich person could answer is "when is being rich, rich enough". 5% of the population controls 95% of the money.

Is this in the best interest for citizens of the world? Nobody is saying take all their money, or stop people from being rich. If making them a LITTLE less rich would drastically change the quality of life then I can't see the issue with taxing them more, regardless of anything.

If it simply meant that health care was universal and not based on your financial situation then I think that would be reason enough. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are less human and deserve less. Perhaps there are other underlying issues that prevent you from earning a wage including disability both mentally and physically.

Your arguements are not wrong and I feel as if you are playing 'devils advocate' to an extent and I GET THAT. If you really don't care about the deteriorating situation then that's fine and your right to feel that way.

I, personally, believe that more liberal views should be adopted without taking away the lucritiveness of capitalism.

Also called "embedded liberalism", social liberal policies gained broad support across the political spectrum, because they reduced the disruptive and polarizing tendencies in society, without challenging the capitalist economic system

Originally Posted by brooksie967

I guess a question that only a rich person could answer is "when is being rich, rich enough". 5% of the population controls 95% of the money.

Is this in the best interest for citizens of the world? Nobody is saying take all their money, or stop people from being rich. If making them a LITTLE less rich would drastically change the quality of life then I can't see the issue with taxing them more, regardless of anything.

If it simply meant that health care was universal and not based on your financial situation then I think that would be reason enough. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are less human and deserve less. Perhaps there are other underlying issues that prevent you from earning a wage including disability both mentally and physically.

Your arguements are not wrong and I feel as if you are playing 'devils advocate' to an extent and I GET THAT. If you really don't care about the deteriorating situation then that's fine and your right to feel that way.

I, personally, believe that more liberal views should be adopted without taking away the lucritiveness of capitalism.

Just pointing out that I don't believe there is necessarily a "best for everyone" solution. What caused the deficit in the first place? The 911 attacks and the ensuing "War on Terrorism"? TARP? Bush tax cuts? The housing crisis, bailouts, entitlement programs, not controlling our borders, corporate greed, government greed, the "War on Drugs", etc, etc...

I have a headache

Edit: I'll venture to say that a lot of our problems stem from not sticking to "first principles" and instead trying to find "everybody feel good" solutions. Well, Lincoln mentioned that you can't please everyone all of the time. But, as is often pointed out, all that old wisdom is just the ramblings of long dead so and so fuddy duddys. After all, what did THEY know....

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

The one critical flaw with the notion that we all follow the same tax code and the code is available to everyone is thus: The average guy follows the law and pays his taxes based on laws passed by congress. Rich people pay their taxes based on additions to the tax code authored by them and their lobbyists and paid off politicians. So, all these special deductions and credits are made for them only.

That is absolutely not the case, the codes are the same, how you use them is the only difference.. You are saying that the rich have a seperate book of codes that they can follow and that is just not the case...

And yes I do happen to believe that anyone can make it in the US there is not any law or code holding anyone back we have no Caste system, nor do we have Secret Police making people disappear in the middle of the night...
There is only yourself holding you back..