the federalist papers, the documents which kill all the right wing memes

There are two forces at play. The first is the desire for certain individuals to acquire and hold on to power. The second is for individual to gain an advantage over their fellow man.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a substantive difference, imho.
 
I Love America said:
This is something that has never seemed to make any sense to me and maybe you can take a moment to walk me through the intricate details. I very common refrain from those on the left is that the rich are stealing from the poor. There are a few problems with that statement.

1) As you mention later in your post, if they are poor how is there anything for the rich to steal?
2) What is the mechanism by which the poor's money is transferred to the rich?
3) How is it the poor are paying a higher burden in taxes if the rich get a tax cut? Every piece of data shows that as it relates to federal income taxes, the rich pay a higher share than the poor. In fact as the tax code gets more progressive, it goes even higher. 50% of taxpayers pay NO federal income tax whatsoever. Now before you launch into the "Yeah, but they pay payroll taxes" routine, allow me to remind you that we are only talking about federal income taxes and nobody is talking about giving payroll tax cuts to anyone. Additionally, the maximum by which FICA taxes are withheld have been going up ever year. In 2000 it was $72,000 and today it is $113,000.

I might remind you that when Bush signed those dastardly tax cuts into law, he removed many people from the tax rolls completely, so while yes the rich did receive a tax cut so did the poor. And yes, the rich received a larger tax cut because well, they pay the bulk of the taxes. It is kind of impossible for someone who does not pay taxes to get a tax cut don't you think?

The last point I would like to make is that unless you are filling out a 1040EZ, there is nothing easy about complying with our tax code. It is a myriad of ups and downs built to favor special interest groups of all sorts and modify human behavior. Buy this and you get a tax credit. Do this and you get a tax credit. It is a complete sham.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, the calculations are easy, whether it's a flat tax or a 5 step progressive tax as Panda pointed out. What you are mentioning here is that the various tax loopholes are what cause the difficulty; you are correct also. Flat-tax people say they will get rid of the loopholes; but we could also get rid of the loopholes under a progressive system.

Here's what I personally see as the problem with a flat tax:

Let's set it at 20% to keep the math easy (it's early here in California).

A person making just under $10 an hour - they make about $20,000 a year. They will pay $4,000 in taxes. That leaves them with $16,000 for rent, food, utilities, transportation, clothing, etc. That $4,000 really hurts. It's not easy to survive on $16,000 a year.

Someone making $100,000 a year - they would pay $20,000 in taxes, leaving them $80,000 for that same rent, food, utilities, transportation, clothing, etc. They're going to be ok. Maybe they buy a Ford instead of a Mercedes, but they'll be comfortable and probably have some $$ left over for movies, etc.

Someone making $500,000 a year - they would pay $100,000 in taxes. That leaves them $400,000 for rent (well, probably mortgage), food, utilities, transportation (beemer!), clothing etc. Anyone saying they need more money? They may WANT more - we always want more- but they aren't close to the edge like the person making $20,000 a year.

That's why we have progressive taxes - let the $20,000/yr person keep all their money. Maybe $100,000 only gets to keep $75,000 instead of $80K. Or $70K. And that person making $500K? Maybe they can get by on $350K without starving much....
 
And enlistees from dirt poor families - as well as their family members back home - don't have any SKIN in the game?
 
And you think that a poor couple, both working two minimum wage jobs, needs to pay income taxes in order to have some "skin in the game"?
 
Panda Hugger said:
Capitalism is a joke that has failed. Every capitalist government in history has imploded on itself, in its own greed. It is an inevitable law of history, that individualism fails.
Click to expand...

Panda Hugger said:
Capitalism is impossible without the force of government, because greed and selfishness and slavery is totally contrary to human nature. Capitalism is the most inhuman, unnatural, externally imposed system the world has ever seen. Capitalism is, by definition, the force of government, property is impossible with the forces of government subjecting people to it.
Click to expand...

Though I agree with your sentiment, some of the details are, in my opinion, off.

First, capitalism hasn't "imploded". It's just outlived its stay. When capitalism first came to be, it was an overall positive phenomenon. Marx even praised it for its industrial development of economies - it was also a big step up from the previous societies. But it does, as you know, come at an immense human cost, which caused the inevitability of revolution.

Sadly, the great theorists of these revolutions failed to predict the profound roles of liberalism and cultural hegemony. And your post makes the same mistake: capitalism hasn't, and won't simply fail, it has to be gradually abolished by overcoming its defense mechanisms.

Now, onto the topics of human nature and individualism:

The superstructure that capitalism imposes on a society is one of greed, selfishness, and so on. We can condemn these traits, but it doesn't take away from the fact that self-interest is inherently human, and made artificially more prominent by capitalism.

Collectivism, on the other hand, is just a more developed form of individualism, seeking to fulfill the individual interests of all. It attacks the notion of individual freedoms exclusive to certain classes, but doesn't do anything more than make them universal.
 
capitalism works great with the proper fettering.

regulations can and have been constructed to keep it in check throughout history.


The right wants all those safeguards stripped so the wealthy can do what ever they want to the population.
 
tekkychick said:
Yes, the calculations are easy, whether it's a flat tax or a 5 step progressive tax as Panda pointed out. What you are mentioning here is that the various tax loopholes are what cause the difficulty; you are correct also. Flat-tax people say they will get rid of the loopholes; but we could also get rid of the loopholes under a progressive system.

Here's what I personally see as the problem with a flat tax:

Let's set it at 20% to keep the math easy (it's early here in California).

A person making just under $10 an hour - they make about $20,000 a year. They will pay $4,000 in taxes. That leaves them with $16,000 for rent, food, utilities, transportation, clothing, etc. That $4,000 really hurts. It's not easy to survive on $16,000 a year.

Someone making $100,000 a year - they would pay $20,000 in taxes, leaving them $80,000 for that same rent, food, utilities, transportation, clothing, etc. They're going to be ok. Maybe they buy a Ford instead of a Mercedes, but they'll be comfortable and probably have some $$ left over for movies, etc.

Someone making $500,000 a year - they would pay $100,000 in taxes. That leaves them $400,000 for rent (well, probably mortgage), food, utilities, transportation (beemer!), clothing etc. Anyone saying they need more money? They may WANT more - we always want more- but they aren't close to the edge like the person making $20,000 a year.

That's why we have progressive taxes - let the $20,000/yr person keep all their money. Maybe $100,000 only gets to keep $75,000 instead of $80K. Or $70K. And that person making $500K? Maybe they can get by on $350K without starving much....
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you really didn't answer anything in my post. You merely waged an argument against a flat tax.

However, I will address that argument. First nobody should have the right to determine "what is enough". How much someone has left to live on should not even be in the discussion about taxation. Second, your example of a person making $20,000 a year can make adjustments too. They can have a roommate, they can share expenses etc.

Everyone should pay income taxes. EVERYONE.

Personally, I am opposed to a flat tax because I believe it is immoral to tax income. I also know that eventually it will creep its way to its current version with nothing stopping it. It is always easy for politicians to stir resentments and jealousy so that those that don't have something demand from those that do. That is immoral in my book.

So how would I set up a tax system? Well, first I would start be eliminating any and all programs that are not Constitutionally mandated. That would probably free up about $3.2 trillion of our almost $4 trillion budget.

The other $800 billion could be raised with excise taxes and a national sales tax of 5% which EVERYONE would pay on ALL GOODS and SERVICES. This would be the most equitable tax because it would tax consumption and it would be least susceptible to politicians whims as everyone would see it everytime they buy something. It is the same reason you never see a State sales tax above 9%. They know peoople see it every day so they don't want to incur their wrath.

I have no time for petty class warfare and cries for the poor when the system people support mires them in poverty
 
damn MM are you actually getting them to discuss the meanings of the founders intentions for real?
 
maineman said:
Go read the questions I posed and answer each one of them. They are two different questions.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
And enlistees from dirt poor families - as well as their family members back home - don't have any SKIN in the game?
Click to expand...

maineman said:
And you think that a poor couple, both working two minimum wage jobs, needs to pay income taxes in order to have some "skin in the game"?
Click to expand...

DamnYankee said:
Yes. Everyone needs to have skin in the game.
Click to expand...
.
 
Your answer addresses neither question.

Do you consider that a family with a member in uniform does or does not have any skin in the game?

Do you consider that a family where both adult members work and are paid minimum wage has skin in the game even if they do not pay INCOME taxes?
 
evince said:
capitalism works great with the proper fettering.

regulations can and have been constructed to keep it in check throughout history.

The right wants all those safeguards stripped so the wealthy can do what ever they want to the population.
Click to expand...

To reference S. Zizek: The only real utopianism of today is one which says our problems can be fixed by small changes.

Whatever you do, as long as it stays within the framework of capitalism, can't be on the proper scale to deal with our problems. So lets look at a three examples:

1. Right now, the money doesn't lie with renewables. So they need to be developed an implemented by an institution outside of the market.
2. Worker exploitation - wither through employment, or unemployment - is the result of capitalism's natural use of employers and a labor market. So even partially addressing it would require steps away from capitalism.
3. Government subjugation to the private sector. Well, as Adam Smith said, in all class based societies, public policy will reflect the interests of the ruling class. So, since capitalism is naturally class based, addressing this problem will require steps away from that system.
 
Most municipalities fund their school budget from property taxes. Should working families who RENT and don't own property be allowed to send their children to public schools in the town where they rent? they certainly don't have any skin in the school budgeWhy should their children get a free education paid for by property owners in the town, many of whom don't even HAVE kids?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top