If I were a rich person right now(which I am not) I would feel as though I had a bullseye on my back and have to endure repeated shots from this administration.I dont really know what to tell you.This country is becoming one where you will reap the same rewards as someone who works their tail off even if you dont work.We really needed Romney to been the Nom with a Win for President.
That not even true in any actual socialist country...
I love how people are acting like the 250/350K plus crowd is going to be taxed until they're left with 30-40k. They're still going to be way above everyone else.
It is stealing.
What if I refuse to pay my taxes because I think the tax system is borked, unfair, and against the Constitutional laws of this country? Then I have a government agency at my door with guns forcing me to pay. And if I still refuse, they use force to throw me in prison.
Laws in this country were setup to protect the innocent and ensure our freedoms and liberties. We are not heading in that direction anymore.
This is called tyranny. Plain and simple. When I am forced to give up the fruits of my labor then it is dead wrong. I don't care how much you make. If you work hard and make the right decisions, then you deserve your rewards. You do not deserve to have them stolen to be given to people who make less than you.
Tax the rich, them dirty rotten bastards don't deserve a dime, they never worked hard for it anyways. Gimmie gimmie gimmie,
You shouldn't have this attitude. But judging by your avatar...
Why should I not have that attitude? Please I'm sure this will be amusing to hear it from you.
I think that the work that someone does should be their own and not for someone else. How does that relate to my avatar?
The common theme in America is "we are all in this together", that's why you shouldn't have that "since it doesn't affect me, who cares!!!!" attitude as you stated above.
Everyone pitches in and everyone gets coverage, just like Medicare/Medicaid. Those who can afford to give more should, because even the smaller folks who make little are able to contribute by giving greedy business owners workers. Sick workers, no employees.
I think yours shows a certain amount of superficial quality, which seems to be in line with your "me me" attitude you typed up there. I hope you don't take that as a knock, but that's how I see it since you asked.
No, the theme in America is not "we are all in this together." That is not the original intent for the setup of our federal government. Where are you getting this from?
The original intent of the federal government was to protect our borders and to make sure that our freedoms, liberties, and ability to make our own decisions was ensured.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
No, the theme in America is not "we are all in this together." That is not the original intent for the setup of our federal government. Where are you getting this from?
The original intent of the federal government was to protect our borders and to make sure that our freedoms, liberties, and ability to make our own decisions was ensured.
Since when were our decision's ensured. Everyday lobbyists bribe our Representatives to follow corporate agenda, against what is best for the people that voted them into office.
"Generally, people in these professions have earned an advanced post-secondary education and a comfortable standard of living. In most cases household incomes can range from $150,000 to $250,000 a year or more." [1]
"Activists" have been promoting "the rich" are walking on the backs of "the poor" for centuries. That's what this has become with healthcare. The Dems have decided that anyone making over $280k / year in a household is making too much money and should subsidize their broken proposal for an attempt at semi-universal healthcare. But my point is that it is a farce. It is really an weak attempt to disguise tax hikes for subsidizing more debt for the Fed. It's a LIE, popinjay. No good will come of the current bill except to increase the amount of debt carried by the one group of Americans that "can afford it." Except that the more you tax that group, the less they "can afford." It's really simple stuff, popinjay.
Try and stand in my shoes for a minute. Try to imagine paying $80,000 in income and property taxes per year. And then, try to imagine how much money that is over several years of work, lets say from the age of 30 to 57. That means that by the time I am 57, with constant taxes paid, I will have paid $2,160,000 to government entities. Now, imagine what I could do with that money if I invested it directly into my community, state, and government organizations without going through the Fed first. OH, and also imagine that you also have a company that you own that pays even MORE taxes. Suddenly, you start to realize that you will have paid over five million dollars to governments that only want to take MORE, but yet tell you that you are too "rich" to take advantage of any of the programs you subsidize with YOUR tax dollars.
And I'm not using "the wrong numbers." Your own quote says that 280k+ is included in the "upper middle class."
No, the theme in America is not "we are all in this together." That is not the original intent for the setup of our federal government. Where are you getting this from?
The original intent of the federal government was to protect our borders and to make sure that our freedoms, liberties, and ability to make our own decisions was ensured.
Since when were our decision's ensured. Everyday lobbyists bribe our Representatives to follow corporate agenda, against what is best for the people that voted them into office.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
"Activists" have been promoting "the rich" are walking on the backs of "the poor" for centuries. That's what this has become with healthcare. The Dems have decided that anyone making over $280k / year in a household is making too much money and should subsidize their broken proposal for an attempt at semi-universal healthcare. But my point is that it is a farce. It is really an weak attempt to disguise tax hikes for subsidizing more debt for the Fed. It's a LIE, popinjay. No good will come of the current bill except to increase the amount of debt carried by the one group of Americans that "can afford it." Except that the more you tax that group, the less they "can afford." It's really simple stuff, popinjay.
Try and stand in my shoes for a minute. Try to imagine paying $80,000 in income and property taxes per year. And then, try to imagine how much money that is over several years of work, lets say from the age of 30 to 57. That means that by the time I am 57, with constant taxes paid, I will have paid $2,160,000 to government entities. Now, imagine what I could do with that money if I invested it directly into my community, state, and government organizations without going through the Fed first. OH, and also imagine that you also have a company that you own that pays even MORE taxes. Suddenly, you start to realize that you will have paid over five million dollars to governments that only want to take MORE, but yet tell you that you are too "rich" to take advantage of any of the programs you subsidize with YOUR tax dollars.
And I'm not using "the wrong numbers." Your own quote says that 280k+ is included in the "upper middle class."
Then why the alleged "rich" don't lobby against it and instead they choose to "not be able to afford it" ? (which I understood it ment that they are tax evaders)
PS. The activists don't promote wrongly. The thing that they promote wrong is what constitutes "rich".
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
Thank you for taking the time to make that rebuttal.
I have to say though, capitalism IS flawed.
As is every other form government known to man.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
Then why the alleged "rich" don't lobby against it and instead they choose to "not be able to afford it" ? (which I understood it ment that they are tax evaders)
PS. The activists don't promote wrongly. The thing that they promote wrong is what constitutes "rich".
Not quite sure what you are getting at with lobbying? Honestly, I think that is the fatal flaw of the people in the $150-$450k income range. They just shut up and take it. The reality is that we are talking about a segment of America that is relatively small and fragmented. Their fiscal interests might be similar, but their overall political interests are just as divided as the rest of the country.
Second, you are saying that "the rich" rise on the backs of the poor? I assume you are referring to the overwhelming evidence of greed in corporate America? Enron and AIG types?
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
To your first paragraph, technically since I am not believing that the rich donate more than they would need to have something to gain , you would have to prove your claims first. But I will be a good sport about it. I base my point according to what I read at www.nccs.urban.org (National Center for Charitable Statistics) and the Chronicle of Philantrhopy (www.philantrhopy.com) . From the total donations, only a 22% comes from contributions, gifts and grants. Also from what I see with the current system they get a 35% from tax deduction. So this means that a lot of corporations and individuals are able to lower their tax branket if I understood the US economic system right. So the bigger part of charity, at least as I understand it, comes from the government right? So why someone should assume that the "rich" (notice I don't add the middle class), would give more if the government was out of the picture and not just trasfer the burden to the middle class as usual?
I am sure you know a lot of good people who donate regardless of circumstances. Although many times I tend to generalize I do know that many give out of their "goodness" of their hearts though I wouldn't put it as poetic as you:) I have not yet found though something that would show that charity would increase that much more or remain at the same levels without government interference. So yes although I disagree with how the bad governement ones are being handled, the people in charge of the philantropism give me the impression that their revenues are more affected by the general economical situation rather than specific parts.
I know why popins logic is not sustainable. My point at that last part was that even though he is probably wrong, still his side is favored by the people in charge. So the people that disagree with it either have to be in charge or generate greater numbers for themselves.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
Thank you for taking the time to make that rebuttal.
I have to say though, capitalism IS flawed.
As is every other form government known to man.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
Everything is flawed because man is flawed. That being the case, the least flawed system is a strictly limted government in the economic area. Overall however the free market delivers the goods to more people at a lower cost than all other means.
I would rather have an america where anything can hapen, but the overall curve is an upawrd sloping, ever expanding trend of growth. Only liberty can provide that curve.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
See those arguments are what I can't stand. At least Fisher presents an objective point of view I can think over.
Both these questions are not logical because they lead you to a specific answer. They don't aim for logic or discussion but simple they try to create an emotional effect.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Then why the alleged "rich" don't lobby against it and instead they choose to "not be able to afford it" ? (which I understood it ment that they are tax evaders)
PS. The activists don't promote wrongly. The thing that they promote wrong is what constitutes "rich".
Not quite sure what you are getting at with lobbying? Honestly, I think that is the fatal flaw of the people in the $150-$450k income range. They just shut up and take it. The reality is that we are talking about a segment of America that is relatively small and fragmented. Their fiscal interests might be similar, but their overall political interests are just as divided as the rest of the country.
Second, you are saying that "the rich" rise on the backs of the poor? I assume you are referring to the overwhelming evidence of greed in corporate America? Enron and AIG types?
Sorry my bad. I used the wrong word. By lobbying I meant banding together to promote their economical interests or just protest against it. But if their wallet is being affected and they can see that the measures being taken are just making it worse, shouldn't that give them a clue to organize?
And for the second yes, I am referring to such organizations. Organizations of such size and greed will take advantage of everyone beneath them. Imo activists make the mistake that they don't make a distinction between "greedy corporation" and "person that got rich because of plan/work and/or luck"
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
See those arguments are what I can't stand. At least Fisher presents an objective point of view I can think over.
Both these questions are not logical because they lead you to a specific answer. They don't aim for logic or discussion but simple they try to create an emotional effect.
Emotional effect or not, that is what would come if the "Take what you can" mind set continues.
@Popinjay You, sir, are an irrational man. And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
And you guys are alarmists, lol.
In a few years, you'll still be worried about the bid, bad government for no reason when presidents you like spend the national economy to a grinding halt, and ones that try to fix it are ridiculed after only a few months in office.
I take it as a compliment you calling me irrational. It's no problem being declared "irrational" in an irrational political climate by those who seem to agree with the status quo of the past eight years. Its a friggin badge of honor.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
And you guys are alarmists, lol.
In a few years, you'll still be worried about the bid, bad government for no reason when presidents you like spend the national economy to a grinding halt, and ones that try to fix it are ridiculed after only a few months in office.
I take it as a compliment you calling me irrational. It's no problem being declared "irrational" in an irrational political climate by those who seem to agree with the status quo of the past eight years. Its a friggin badge of honor.
Did you even read some of the posts by the left during Bush's time? They were alarmist too. Honestly, I don't see a difference now versus how it was a couple years ago outside of the fact that everyone had pretty much turned against Bush during his second term and not everyone has turned against Obama yet.
There is a lot happening in Congress right now. Cap and Trade, Healthcare, the piggy back of the hate crimes bill on DoD Authorization Act, Sotomayer confirmation hearings, etc. And the Fed just posted the biggest deficit ever before the fiscal year has even ended. I'm not sure how you can't be alarmed when you see tax income for the Fed dropping at the same time we see record deficit spending. Unemployment is going to hit double digits soon and is already nearing the level it was in '82. I know I was alarmed back then.
What it means to you is, about an additional .7% of your total income going towards health care, while most lower class families can not afford coverage or pay 10-15% of their total income. Forgive me for not sympathizing. This is about raising the quality of life for ALL Americans and I guess the middle class is too selfish to realize this. They need someone to look down upon to make themselves feel better.
Taxing the rich never works. Only takes a few seconds of research to realize you don't earn continous revenue by increasing taxes solely on the upper income bracket. At best it will increase revenue for 2 years, not the proposed 10 years the bill says. Any politician who thinks it will magically work obviously has not researched the subject.
If it wasn't for the fact the US Government is so ineffecient with money, the supplies they get should be sufficient. Only 2 other countries GDP is higher then what the US Government spends annually. This is the main reason I am worried about any such legislation. Just look at the mess Medicare and Medicaid have turned into.
I don't think Public Healthcare will improve quality of life. It has shown no signs of such in other countries.
What it means to you is, about an additional .7% of your total income going towards health care, while most lower class families can not afford coverage or pay 10-15% of their total income. Forgive me for not sympathizing. This is about raising the quality of life for ALL Americans and I guess the middle class is too selfish to realize this. They need someone to look down upon to make themselves feel better.
No, it isn't going to raise quality of life for ALL Americans. In its current form, it is going to cover SOME Americans at the expense of other Americans (upper middle class and Medicare / Medicaid users). And that is my beef with this bill. Yeah, their intent is "good," it's how they are going to do it that stinks. And don't be fooled by the Administration, this healthcare bill is more deficit spending, the tax increases will not cover the cost because the cost is going to continue to rise. If this recession / depression continues much longer, the number of people in that "super rich and wealthy" category (as the Democrats like to put it) is going to diminish. As they diminish, the tax revenue gets less and less while the bill's costs goes up and up. Yeah, so I'm using a slippery slope as an argument against tax hikes, but just because the logic in the argument is a fallacy does not make the argument false (argumentum ad logicam).
Anyhow, the debate is far from over on what form Healthcare reform is going to take now. I believe that is in another thread here on the boards. My beef is not with Healthcare reform. Honestly, I wish we could overhaul ALL insurance (medical, auto, home, etc) in this country to make sense. But that is a discussion for another thread. As a teaser, think about this: I pay medical, dental, eye, home, auto, and the same for the business property, equipment, and employees. In every one of those insurance contracts, there is a premium paid for medical (liability or other). Across all those insurances, I literally have millions in medical liability, disability, etc for the price of about $75,000 per year. Why can't I combine all my medical insurances into one encompassing policy? Oh, and don't forget FICA....
No, it isn't going to raise quality of life for ALL Americans. In its current form, it is going to cover SOME Americans at the expense of other Americans (upper middle class and Medicare / Medicaid users). And that is my beef with this bill. Yeah, their intent is "good," it's how they are going to do it that stinks. And don't be fooled by the Administration, this healthcare bill is more deficit spending, the tax increases will not cover the cost because the cost is going to continue to rise. If this recession / depression continues much longer, the number of people in that "super rich and wealthy" category (as the Democrats like to put it) is going to diminish. As they diminish, the tax revenue gets less and less while the bill's costs goes up and up. Yeah, so I'm using a slippery slope as an argument against tax hikes, but just because the logic in the argument is a fallacy does not make the argument false (argumentum ad logicam).
That's my main problem with what they're trying to do. Not only is this going to cost more than this country can afford, it isn't going to cover everybody. I mean if you are going to spend this much, at least cover everybody. And don't be fooled, everybody's taxes will get raised eventually. This isn't just a rich thing. This country can't live on borrowed money forever. Whatever small "booms" they see right now can not be sustained, because we are deeply in debt.
What good is taxing the "rich" right now to pay for healthcare for others, when everybody knows raising taxes will simply cause more people to lose jobs? There's absolutely nothing they are doing right now that creates jobs, everything they are doing simply hurts the job market. If it's not taxing the rich, it's making business owners pay more for something. When more people lose jobs, there will be less people paying taxes, more people start receiving unemployment benefits and get these healthcare coverages. Who's going to pay for all this?
The government will receive less, while having to pay more. That's recipe for disaster. I live in California and we've already gotten our sales taxes raised, and the state is in deep trouble. I see more and more businesses closing. The small business I work for has seen a decline in customers. Now is not the time for the government to tax more and spend more, because that's not going to solve anything, it isn't creating more jobs. JOBS is what most people want, jobs is what makes people happy and generate income for their family. That right now is more important than anything else imo.
As this bill is still in committee, it seems to evolved since last week. You'll notice they have softened the taxes since it first came out.
House Democrats said the income tax increase in their bill would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million.
They aren't exactly sure how much it is going to cost, but say $1.5 trillion estimated
Most of the costs are deferred to beyond 2012.
The penalties toward small businesses seem steep even with the exemption if you provide insurance
The tax on individuals is only going to pay for 1/3 of the bill and I don't see where the rest is coming from with any confidence.
Edit:
I'm kinda curious what this statement implies though:
Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
It sounds to me that if you have insurance, but refuse it in favor of the government coverage, you pay a 2.5% additional income tax? That sounds somewhat fishy. And I am still nervous that the only cost figure we have is from a representative's aid doing the calculation. What's that? A 20-something with a degree in political science doing a cost calculation for as far a reaching program as the Health Care of 50 million Americans? I have serious doubts.
Comments
That not even true in any actual socialist country...
It is stealing.
What if I refuse to pay my taxes because I think the tax system is borked, unfair, and against the Constitutional laws of this country? Then I have a government agency at my door with guns forcing me to pay. And if I still refuse, they use force to throw me in prison.
Laws in this country were setup to protect the innocent and ensure our freedoms and liberties. We are not heading in that direction anymore.
This is called tyranny. Plain and simple. When I am forced to give up the fruits of my labor then it is dead wrong. I don't care how much you make. If you work hard and make the right decisions, then you deserve your rewards. You do not deserve to have them stolen to be given to people who make less than you.
===============================
You shouldn't have this attitude. But judging by your avatar...
Why should I not have that attitude? Please I'm sure this will be amusing to hear it from you.
I think that the work that someone does should be their own and not for someone else. How does that relate to my avatar?
The common theme in America is "we are all in this together", that's why you shouldn't have that "since it doesn't affect me, who cares!!!!" attitude as you stated above.
Everyone pitches in and everyone gets coverage, just like Medicare/Medicaid. Those who can afford to give more should, because even the smaller folks who make little are able to contribute by giving greedy business owners workers. Sick workers, no employees.
I think yours shows a certain amount of superficial quality, which seems to be in line with your "me me" attitude you typed up there. I hope you don't take that as a knock, but that's how I see it since you asked.
No, the theme in America is not "we are all in this together." That is not the original intent for the setup of our federal government. Where are you getting this from?
The original intent of the federal government was to protect our borders and to make sure that our freedoms, liberties, and ability to make our own decisions was ensured.
===============================
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
QFT
@Popinjay
You, sir, are an irrational man.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Fail argument is fail.
No, the theme in America is not "we are all in this together." That is not the original intent for the setup of our federal government. Where are you getting this from?
The original intent of the federal government was to protect our borders and to make sure that our freedoms, liberties, and ability to make our own decisions was ensured.
Since when were our decision's ensured. Everyday lobbyists bribe our Representatives to follow corporate agenda, against what is best for the people that voted them into office.
Class warfare. Rich against poor? Black vs White? Middle vs.. whoever?
Or which class warfare is it I don't want to see specifically? Could you state EXACTLY which two classes are in this war you speak of?
EDIT: You also appear to be using the wrong numbers. You state this now will be taxing the "upper middle class" because it's people making $280k plus.
Upper Middle class
"Generally, people in these professions have earned an advanced post-secondary education and a comfortable standard of living. In most cases household incomes can range from $150,000 to $250,000 a year or more." [1]
"Activists" have been promoting "the rich" are walking on the backs of "the poor" for centuries. That's what this has become with healthcare. The Dems have decided that anyone making over $280k / year in a household is making too much money and should subsidize their broken proposal for an attempt at semi-universal healthcare. But my point is that it is a farce. It is really an weak attempt to disguise tax hikes for subsidizing more debt for the Fed. It's a LIE, popinjay. No good will come of the current bill except to increase the amount of debt carried by the one group of Americans that "can afford it." Except that the more you tax that group, the less they "can afford." It's really simple stuff, popinjay.
Try and stand in my shoes for a minute. Try to imagine paying $80,000 in income and property taxes per year. And then, try to imagine how much money that is over several years of work, lets say from the age of 30 to 57. That means that by the time I am 57, with constant taxes paid, I will have paid $2,160,000 to government entities. Now, imagine what I could do with that money if I invested it directly into my community, state, and government organizations without going through the Fed first. OH, and also imagine that you also have a company that you own that pays even MORE taxes. Suddenly, you start to realize that you will have paid over five million dollars to governments that only want to take MORE, but yet tell you that you are too "rich" to take advantage of any of the programs you subsidize with YOUR tax dollars.
And I'm not using "the wrong numbers." Your own quote says that 280k+ is included in the "upper middle class."
No, the theme in America is not "we are all in this together." That is not the original intent for the setup of our federal government. Where are you getting this from?
The original intent of the federal government was to protect our borders and to make sure that our freedoms, liberties, and ability to make our own decisions was ensured.
Since when were our decision's ensured. Everyday lobbyists bribe our Representatives to follow corporate agenda, against what is best for the people that voted them into office.
I think that was part of his point.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
QFT
@Popinjay
You, sir, are an irrational man.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
"Activists" have been promoting "the rich" are walking on the backs of "the poor" for centuries. That's what this has become with healthcare. The Dems have decided that anyone making over $280k / year in a household is making too much money and should subsidize their broken proposal for an attempt at semi-universal healthcare. But my point is that it is a farce. It is really an weak attempt to disguise tax hikes for subsidizing more debt for the Fed. It's a LIE, popinjay. No good will come of the current bill except to increase the amount of debt carried by the one group of Americans that "can afford it." Except that the more you tax that group, the less they "can afford." It's really simple stuff, popinjay.
Try and stand in my shoes for a minute. Try to imagine paying $80,000 in income and property taxes per year. And then, try to imagine how much money that is over several years of work, lets say from the age of 30 to 57. That means that by the time I am 57, with constant taxes paid, I will have paid $2,160,000 to government entities. Now, imagine what I could do with that money if I invested it directly into my community, state, and government organizations without going through the Fed first. OH, and also imagine that you also have a company that you own that pays even MORE taxes. Suddenly, you start to realize that you will have paid over five million dollars to governments that only want to take MORE, but yet tell you that you are too "rich" to take advantage of any of the programs you subsidize with YOUR tax dollars.
And I'm not using "the wrong numbers." Your own quote says that 280k+ is included in the "upper middle class."
Then why the alleged "rich" don't lobby against it and instead they choose to "not be able to afford it" ? (which I understood it ment that they are tax evaders)
PS. The activists don't promote wrongly. The thing that they promote wrong is what constitutes "rich".
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
QFT
@Popinjay
You, sir, are an irrational man.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
QFT
@Popinjay
You, sir, are an irrational man.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
Thank you for taking the time to make that rebuttal.
I have to say though, capitalism IS flawed.
As is every other form government known to man.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
Then why the alleged "rich" don't lobby against it and instead they choose to "not be able to afford it" ? (which I understood it ment that they are tax evaders)
PS. The activists don't promote wrongly. The thing that they promote wrong is what constitutes "rich".
Not quite sure what you are getting at with lobbying? Honestly, I think that is the fatal flaw of the people in the $150-$450k income range. They just shut up and take it. The reality is that we are talking about a segment of America that is relatively small and fragmented. Their fiscal interests might be similar, but their overall political interests are just as divided as the rest of the country.
Second, you are saying that "the rich" rise on the backs of the poor? I assume you are referring to the overwhelming evidence of greed in corporate America? Enron and AIG types?
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
QFT
@Popinjay
You, sir, are an irrational man.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
To your first paragraph, technically since I am not believing that the rich donate more than they would need to have something to gain , you would have to prove your claims first.
But I will be a good sport about it. I base my point according to what I read at www.nccs.urban.org (National Center for Charitable Statistics) and the Chronicle of Philantrhopy (www.philantrhopy.com) . From the total donations, only a 22% comes from contributions, gifts and grants. Also from what I see with the current system they get a 35% from tax deduction. So this means that a lot of corporations and individuals are able to lower their tax branket if I understood the US economic system right. So the bigger part of charity, at least as I understand it, comes from the government right? So why someone should assume that the "rich" (notice I don't add the middle class), would give more if the government was out of the picture and not just trasfer the burden to the middle class as usual?
I am sure you know a lot of good people who donate regardless of circumstances. Although many times I tend to generalize I do know that many give out of their "goodness" of their hearts though I wouldn't put it as poetic as you:) I have not yet found though something that would show that charity would increase that much more or remain at the same levels without government interference. So yes although I disagree with how the bad governement ones are being handled, the people in charge of the philantropism give me the impression that their revenues are more affected by the general economical situation rather than specific parts.
I know why popins logic is not sustainable. My point at that last part was that even though he is probably wrong, still his side is favored by the people in charge. So the people that disagree with it either have to be in charge or generate greater numbers for themselves.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
That's okay. It's my opinion and I think I'm entitled to it. I think people making more than 350K should chip in a bit more. It's not like they really need all those extra profit from overcharging their customers for things.
If it were put to a vote if we should tax people making 350k at a higher rate to pay for healthcare, I'd vote yes. I think it's only the fair thing as part of the overall social responsiblity for those people you are charging a lot of money to buy your goods for, that you help the social fabric as well.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how I'd vote. I can only hope the rest of America making under 100K as a family sees it this way too, then we might just get some healthcare for everyone. Rich and poor.
Yup this kind of thinking is exactly what I have been talking about, My gang is bigger than your gang so we can take what we want from you -- tyranny of the majority which is as dangerous as any other form of tyranny.
Exactly what de Toqeville and others warned us about the danger to democracy -- democracy will be destroyed the moment the public learns it can vote themselves the public treasury.
QFT
@Popinjay
You, sir, are an irrational man.
And if you argue against irrationality, the only thing that is left is greed.
These "Rich" donate much more than you assume,
They "donate" as much they need to get a tax break bigger than what they "donated". Else they wouldn't "donate". Rich people don't become rich because they give to charity ok?
if you continue to take their money away from them, then who will want to put the effort into opening a new shop?
Who will put the effort into trying to create something to help the society, if all their money is taken from them?
Sentimental much? "Rich" people are not out to "help" society, they are out to make money. The fact that society is being helped on the way is just a side effect. If they would make more money by you and me living in a ditch, then believe me they would tell you where you can shove that society. So no both these arguments are sentimental, biased and oversimplified.
Who will put effort into anything, if we can just wave a magic wand and take the money from somewhere else?
Hmm let me think. Ah I found it. My boss for example. He waved his magic wand, fired 3 employees and got enough money to buy himself a nice 4 week summer trip while allocating the rest of his employees to cover the 3 positions that were left. See how nicely it works even in the private sector?:)
Fail argument is fail.
His argument is no more fail or win than yours. He believes that his way is better over yours and vice versa. If you believe your way is better then either be in charge or find more people to support it. That's how the world works.
Actually, the rich and the middle class by and large donate far more than they get tax breaks fpr, and they were doing it long before tax breaks existed. Either way I would like to see you PROVE by showing me giving vs act ualtax savings the truth of what youa re saying. I know I have read otherwise in many places, but since you are making the assertion, and I do not believe it, I am asking you to prove this point.
Every rich person I have ever known, with very few exceptions, wants to give back because of the blessing or the luck they've had. All the first hospitals, universities, museums, and charities were started by such people. Those people are still chugging along, and would do more if the government didn't rob them and crowd out their good dollars with bad government ones.
His argument is "fail" because it is not sustainable. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor creates less rich and doesn't measurably helo the poor. What helps the poor is abundance that comes from progress, Progress which comes from freedom.
Thank you for taking the time to make that rebuttal.
I have to say though, capitalism IS flawed.
As is every other form government known to man.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
Everything is flawed because man is flawed. That being the case, the least flawed system is a strictly limted government in the economic area. Overall however the free market delivers the goods to more people at a lower cost than all other means.
I would rather have an america where anything can hapen, but the overall curve is an upawrd sloping, ever expanding trend of growth. Only liberty can provide that curve.
fishermage.blogspot.com
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
See those arguments are what I can't stand. At least Fisher presents an objective point of view I can think over.
Both these questions are not logical because they lead you to a specific answer. They don't aim for logic or discussion but simple they try to create an emotional effect.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Then why the alleged "rich" don't lobby against it and instead they choose to "not be able to afford it" ? (which I understood it ment that they are tax evaders)
PS. The activists don't promote wrongly. The thing that they promote wrong is what constitutes "rich".
Not quite sure what you are getting at with lobbying? Honestly, I think that is the fatal flaw of the people in the $150-$450k income range. They just shut up and take it. The reality is that we are talking about a segment of America that is relatively small and fragmented. Their fiscal interests might be similar, but their overall political interests are just as divided as the rest of the country.
Second, you are saying that "the rich" rise on the backs of the poor? I assume you are referring to the overwhelming evidence of greed in corporate America? Enron and AIG types?
Sorry my bad. I used the wrong word. By lobbying I meant banding together to promote their economical interests or just protest against it. But if their wallet is being affected and they can see that the measures being taken are just making it worse, shouldn't that give them a clue to organize?
And for the second yes, I am referring to such organizations. Organizations of such size and greed will take advantage of everyone beneath them. Imo activists make the mistake that they don't make a distinction between "greedy corporation" and "person that got rich because of plan/work and/or luck"
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
But would you want an America where everyone is moderately poor no matter what?
or an America where there is the possibility to become wealthy?
See those arguments are what I can't stand. At least Fisher presents an objective point of view I can think over.
Both these questions are not logical because they lead you to a specific answer. They don't aim for logic or discussion but simple they try to create an emotional effect.
Emotional effect or not, that is what would come if the "Take what you can" mind set continues.
And you guys are alarmists, lol.
In a few years, you'll still be worried about the bid, bad government for no reason when presidents you like spend the national economy to a grinding halt, and ones that try to fix it are ridiculed after only a few months in office.
I take it as a compliment you calling me irrational. It's no problem being declared "irrational" in an irrational political climate by those who seem to agree with the status quo of the past eight years. Its a friggin badge of honor.
"TO MICHAEL!"
And you guys are alarmists, lol.
In a few years, you'll still be worried about the bid, bad government for no reason when presidents you like spend the national economy to a grinding halt, and ones that try to fix it are ridiculed after only a few months in office.
I take it as a compliment you calling me irrational. It's no problem being declared "irrational" in an irrational political climate by those who seem to agree with the status quo of the past eight years. Its a friggin badge of honor.
Did you even read some of the posts by the left during Bush's time? They were alarmist too. Honestly, I don't see a difference now versus how it was a couple years ago outside of the fact that everyone had pretty much turned against Bush during his second term and not everyone has turned against Obama yet.
There is a lot happening in Congress right now. Cap and Trade, Healthcare, the piggy back of the hate crimes bill on DoD Authorization Act, Sotomayer confirmation hearings, etc. And the Fed just posted the biggest deficit ever before the fiscal year has even ended. I'm not sure how you can't be alarmed when you see tax income for the Fed dropping at the same time we see record deficit spending. Unemployment is going to hit double digits soon and is already nearing the level it was in '82. I know I was alarmed back then.
What it means to you is, about an additional .7% of your total income going towards health care, while most lower class families can not afford coverage or pay 10-15% of their total income. Forgive me for not sympathizing. This is about raising the quality of life for ALL Americans and I guess the middle class is too selfish to realize this. They need someone to look down upon to make themselves feel better.
Taxing the rich never works. Only takes a few seconds of research to realize you don't earn continous revenue by increasing taxes solely on the upper income bracket. At best it will increase revenue for 2 years, not the proposed 10 years the bill says. Any politician who thinks it will magically work obviously has not researched the subject.
If it wasn't for the fact the US Government is so ineffecient with money, the supplies they get should be sufficient. Only 2 other countries GDP is higher then what the US Government spends annually. This is the main reason I am worried about any such legislation. Just look at the mess Medicare and Medicaid have turned into.
I don't think Public Healthcare will improve quality of life. It has shown no signs of such in other countries.
No, it isn't going to raise quality of life for ALL Americans. In its current form, it is going to cover SOME Americans at the expense of other Americans (upper middle class and Medicare / Medicaid users). And that is my beef with this bill. Yeah, their intent is "good," it's how they are going to do it that stinks. And don't be fooled by the Administration, this healthcare bill is more deficit spending, the tax increases will not cover the cost because the cost is going to continue to rise. If this recession / depression continues much longer, the number of people in that "super rich and wealthy" category (as the Democrats like to put it) is going to diminish. As they diminish, the tax revenue gets less and less while the bill's costs goes up and up. Yeah, so I'm using a slippery slope as an argument against tax hikes, but just because the logic in the argument is a fallacy does not make the argument false (argumentum ad logicam).
Anyhow, the debate is far from over on what form Healthcare reform is going to take now. I believe that is in another thread here on the boards. My beef is not with Healthcare reform. Honestly, I wish we could overhaul ALL insurance (medical, auto, home, etc) in this country to make sense. But that is a discussion for another thread. As a teaser, think about this: I pay medical, dental, eye, home, auto, and the same for the business property, equipment, and employees. In every one of those insurance contracts, there is a premium paid for medical (liability or other). Across all those insurances, I literally have millions in medical liability, disability, etc for the price of about $75,000 per year. Why can't I combine all my medical insurances into one encompassing policy? Oh, and don't forget FICA....
That's my main problem with what they're trying to do. Not only is this going to cost more than this country can afford, it isn't going to cover everybody. I mean if you are going to spend this much, at least cover everybody. And don't be fooled, everybody's taxes will get raised eventually. This isn't just a rich thing. This country can't live on borrowed money forever. Whatever small "booms" they see right now can not be sustained, because we are deeply in debt.
What good is taxing the "rich" right now to pay for healthcare for others, when everybody knows raising taxes will simply cause more people to lose jobs? There's absolutely nothing they are doing right now that creates jobs, everything they are doing simply hurts the job market. If it's not taxing the rich, it's making business owners pay more for something. When more people lose jobs, there will be less people paying taxes, more people start receiving unemployment benefits and get these healthcare coverages. Who's going to pay for all this?
The government will receive less, while having to pay more. That's recipe for disaster. I live in California and we've already gotten our sales taxes raised, and the state is in deep trouble. I see more and more businesses closing. The small business I work for has seen a decline in customers. Now is not the time for the government to tax more and spend more, because that's not going to solve anything, it isn't creating more jobs. JOBS is what most people want, jobs is what makes people happy and generate income for their family. That right now is more important than anything else imo.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
As this bill is still in committee, it seems to evolved since last week. You'll notice they have softened the taxes since it first came out.
House Democrats said the income tax increase in their bill would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million.
from AP via Yahoo News
There are still things I don't like:
Edit:
I'm kinda curious what this statement implies though:
Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
It sounds to me that if you have insurance, but refuse it in favor of the government coverage, you pay a 2.5% additional income tax? That sounds somewhat fishy. And I am still nervous that the only cost figure we have is from a representative's aid doing the calculation. What's that? A 20-something with a degree in political science doing a cost calculation for as far a reaching program as the Health Care of 50 million Americans? I have serious doubts.