|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 14:50:26 GMT -6
To your point #2 twine, what is the incentive to further one's career, education, standard of living if you know it's going to be socialized to someone less fortunate? And contrary to that, what will be the less fortunate's motivation to better themselves to work, become educated, etc., if they are going to get subsidized? I would think people would flock down the path of the easiest way to get $. If people know their standard of living is going to be raised by subsidies there is no further incentive to move forward and progess. If people with a high std of living realize they are going to get heavily taxed for it, you are essentially capping people's movitivation upward as well. edited comment: The likely end result would be substantial decreases in the US's productivity. You guys make it sound like I'm supporting communism, which is not the case. If you make more money you will still have more money and there are classes for a reason, and I do think you should be rewarded for your efforts. I don't think everyone should be paid the same and for you to imply that is ridiculous. Also, please note that I am against THE RICH, the people with millions and millions of dollars, getting tax breaks. They can afford to support the system. People rarely end up with that money without screwing someone over in the process. I'm not talking about people making $100k, $200k, even up to $1 million. I only say that because some of you assholes will be overly literal and say something like, "Well, if the cutoff is $500k, I'll just make sure to make $499,999." I suppose you guys would rather have a country of 1% super rich people, 5% semi rich people, and the rest of us all be proles. If that sounds like a good country to you, fine. I'd rather see a country where well being is enjoyed by as many as possible. Before you start saying I am suggesting handouts, I do believe in personal responsibility, and people should work hard for what they get. We do have the most productive work force in the world for a reason and most of this productivity is outside of the white collared work force.
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Oct 28, 2008 14:51:44 GMT -6
Here are my thoughts, for what's it's worth. It's not so much a republican/democrat thing (although I do tend to agree more with the liberals). It's more of a morality thing for me. I understand how people think it's all about the "American Dream" and how you worked hard (in most cases; excluding the trust fund babies) to get to where you are at and you shouldn't be penalized any more then the average Joe when it comes to putting in your share. But I guess I don't look at it from a "me" perspective. I look at it from a "we" perspective. Getting back to my morality thing; I think it is not only the duty of our government to take care of it's population, but it's the "right" thing to do as well. For being the most powerful and wealthy country in the world, it blows my mind how many people live below the poverty line. It blows my mind that we have people who die because they can't afford health care. It blows my mind how easy it is for people to pretend that these people don't exist; or worse, how many people who truly don't care what happens to them. It seems like a lot of people have the mentality that all very poor people are deadbeats and druggies who don't deserve even the most basic of modern civilization comforts. "Like you, I do have a problem with people syphoning off of the system and using food stamps to support their bodies so they can use their can money on crack and alcohol. I have absolutely no sympathy for these people and think the world would be better off if they died." - Twine Twine, your my boy and all, but that comment is pretty fucked up in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think that way too many people share your same view point. Whatever happened to compassion? I'm not religious at all. But don't almost all religions preach compassion as one of the most important traits a person can possess? Yet, unfortunately, when it comes to America you find very little of it. Nowadays it's all about money. How much can I make? How little can I contribute for the greater good? Money, money, money. That truly is what it's all about. The "American Dream" is how much can you accumulate and then live out your life in style (while simulatenously trying as hard as you can to keep everything to yourself). American Dream = Greed? You could certainly make an argument for that. So what if we "re-distribute" some of the wealth from the top 10-20% and spread it around the bottom layers. The top 10% is still going to live on. Sure, they may have one less yacht or a couple less vacation houses. But, all in all, they are still living a life that the majority of people wouldn't even be able to conceive of living. Meanwhile, use that money to improve the lives of people as a whole. Sure, you are going to have the free-loaders. But we have free-loaders now. We had free-loaders since we started our government. There are always going to be free-loaders. But surely some of you can see the trickle down (or trickle up in this case) effect of such a system. Restore these people's faith in our government, improve their lives, and who knows what sort of inspiration you may breed. It's like that old saying; "Your only as strong as your weakest link". Well, why not work on reinforcing those weak links. We need to start focusing on bringing our people together and fixing our society. Until we do, we will never evolve. We will always be a nation that is divided. We need to lead the world by example and show them what life could be like if we take that next evolutionary step. Stop all wars. Bring all of our troops home. Take the billions and billions of dollars we funnel into the war machine and re-distribute it into social and health services. Obviously we would need to maintain enough of a military to defend ourselves, but we have no business policing the rest of the world. That being said; to answer your question BTR: "Barack's "redistribution" stance? Or do you think you are far enough away from being one whose income will be redistributed or impacted by the "rich" people whose income is redistributed to not care? Or are you waiting with your hand out? " - BTR Neither. I do care. I also truly believe that we are embarking down a path of real change for the better. And, no, I am not waiting with my hand out. And with that, I will step down off of my box. One love.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Oct 28, 2008 14:57:29 GMT -6
The type of people you describe at the end Twine (the ones who bust ass for smaller salaries) are the people BTR and IaFan loathe because in their small minds they only make 30K because they don't work hard enough. You can tell this by the condescending rants they post about proles and the like. Because they chose an occupation that pays them more than 30K, they believe they have some sort of right or obligation to bag on those who didn't choose their path. They are more concerned about their own personal wealth/income than the greater good of mankind. These are the type of people you are conversing with.
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 28, 2008 15:09:01 GMT -6
I wasn't trying to make it sound like you felt we should all be paid the same, and apologize if that's how it came off.
Why do we need laws to force, what in essence is charity, upon people? Shouldn't that be a personal decision?
And you mention free loaders. Do you think the free loading will get worse?
Finally, how would you react if it was your income that suddenly is deemed distributable? You make it sound like everyone over $200k (I am not) is sitting on a pile of cash smoking cigs and getting fat, and not adding anything to society.
What if you're not out blowing the money on yachts, but trying to secure your children's future, or establishing a new venture or company which could employ hundreds to thousands?
I guess I think of better ways to shore up our weak links than a handout from the wealthiest 10%-20%.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Oct 28, 2008 15:46:57 GMT -6
The type of people you describe at the end Twine (the ones who bust ass for smaller salaries) are the people BTR and IaFan loathe because in their small minds they only make 30K because they don't work hard enough. You can tell this by the condescending rants they post about proles and the like. Because they chose an occupation that pays them more than 30K, they believe they have some sort of right or obligation to bag on those who didn't choose their path. They are more concerned about their own personal wealth/income than the greater good of mankind. These are the type of people you are conversing with. I think you have it a bit wrong. I have no problem with people that make $30K a year or people that picked a profession that doesn't pay great. If they love their job the more power to them. I am not a better person because I make more then them or vice versa. What really pisses me off is someone that very well could be our next VP that talks about giving, sharing, doing your patriotic duty or whatever the f**k he wants to call it, who makes over $300,000 a year and only gives $300 to charity in a year??? How do you explain that one to me? Do as I say not as I do. It's all a bunch of crap. You see it's easy for some of those in DC to ask the American people to open up their pockets for the benefit of others while they sit in their office and don't do shit. I have no problem helping people out, hell I have given more to charity then Biden has the last 10 years and don't make anywhere close to what he does. But like a lot of people I would like to make my own choice on who to give MY money to, not some suit in DC.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 15:50:12 GMT -6
So what if we "re-distribute" some of the wealth from the top 10-20% and spread it around the bottom layers. The top 10% is still going to live on. Sure, they may have one less yacht or a couple less vacation houses. But, all in all, they are still living a life that the majority of people wouldn't even be able to conceive of living. A lot of robust discussion here, I'd like to respond to it all, but I've got a bunch of work to do tonight. Anyway, the point you made above is very far from reality. My household income is probably around the top 2 or 3% in the nation, as I have a decent job and my wife makes okay money. I live in a 647 square foot apartment that is so prolish it does not even have a washer and dryer. I do not own a car, let alone a yacht or a vacation house. Most people in that top 10% group don't own vacation houses or yachts, either, their creditors do. I've never been in debt, other than low-interest student loan debt. I have worked since I was 12 when I got a paper route. I am very lucky my wife is Japanese and is on board with my life strategy of saving for a prosperous retirement and making sure we have enough savings to provide for our parents if they ever need it. I think that in my personal situation, saving is far more favorable than instant gratification through consumption. Our country needs to think this way, too. Our laws need to promote work, favor delayed gratification and incentivize people to save, not create incentives to incur massive amounts of mortgage debt and flip houses tax free. You are right on one point, though. Most of the people I know who earn around my household income have a life many people can't "conceive of living." They were the people who busted their asses studying in college, got an advanced degree and work very long hours in high stress professions. Their reward for "success" through investing in themselves and delaying gratification is to be told that they are greedy and should pay more in taxes.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 15:56:40 GMT -6
I wasn't trying to make it sound like you felt we should all be paid the same, and apologize if that's how it came off. Why do we need laws to force, what in essence is charity, upon people? Shouldn't that be a personal decision? And you mention free loaders. Do you think the free loading will get worse? Finally, how would you react if it was your income that suddenly is deemed distributable? You make it sound like everyone over $200k (I am not) is sitting on a pile of cash smoking cigs and getting fat, and not adding anything to society. What if you're not out blowing the money on yachts, but trying to secure your children's future, or establishing a new venture or company which could employ hundreds to thousands? I guess I think of better ways to shore up our weak links than a handout from the wealthiest 10%-20%. 1) Yes, charity should be forced to some degree with out tax money. I don't believe people would give money to help out their fellow man on their own good will. Some people would and will, but not most. Likewise, do you think we should force people to spend their money on a war that has no clear purpose other than empirical pursuit? Surely you don't believe we are in Iraq to liberate their people, find WMD's or get rid of Saddam Hussien? 2) Freeloading could get worse, I don't like it but I do see it as a possiblity. However, if the inability to pay medical bills is keeping people from being able to afford shelter, I think some help is justified. 3) I don't know what makes you think "Your income is suddenly deemed distributable". Again, I don't know if you are reading my posts or not but I am not talking about people who make $200k. They are well off and upper middle/lower upper class citizens. I am talking about hitting the people living well beyond their means. I have made that point several times and you seem to be completely ignoring that point. 4) I support your position on this, but let's be realistic, this is not what is happening. Sometimes, yes, but frequently the money is pissed away on needless luxuries (7 houses and 13 cars). Granted, I do realize that there are people who make the houses and cars who have jobs and this is the backbone support for trickledown economic theory but I think it is bullshit. The world would be better off by havin someone like a crook with 3 houses and 4 cars and have the other money going to more noble causes than individual vanity. Lastly, what ways do you have in mind to shore up support for the weakest links?
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 15:56:52 GMT -6
I have no problem helping people out, hell I have given more to charity then Biden has the last 10 years and don't make anywhere close to what he does. But like a lot of people I would like to make my own choice on who to give MY money to, not some suit in DC. But your direct action doesn't require a big bureaucracy. How are the government pensioner millionaires going to get rich without bureacracy? And think about it, if you donate one dollar to alleviate hunger in Chicago to the food depository, that dollar will end up feeding some poor person who desperately needs the food. If you are forced to pay a dollar to hunger alleviation efforts through government, that dollar will go so much further as each layer of government skims off its share, there might even be 25 cents left to feed the poor, that might be enough to pay for half a meal under the Monsanto no-bid contract Grassley probably negotiated on behalf of We the People.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 16:00:57 GMT -6
4) I support your position on this, but let's be realistic, this is not what is happening. Sometimes, yes, but frequently the money is pissed away on needless luxuries (7 houses and 13 cars). Granted, I do realize that there are people who make the houses and cars who have jobs and this is the backbone support for trickledown economic theory but I think it is bullshit. The world would be better off by havin someone like a crook with 3 houses and 4 cars and have the other money going to more noble causes than individual vanity. Did you read the article on HENRY's? Have you ever considered changing your name to Wesley Mouch?
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Oct 28, 2008 16:09:31 GMT -6
You are right on one point, though. Most of the people I know who earn around my household income have a life many people can't "conceive of living." They were the people who busted their asses studying in college, got an advanced degree and work very long hours in high stress professions. Their reward for "success" through investing in themselves and delaying gratification is to be told that they are greedy and should pay more in taxes. [/quote]
Of course there are always going to be exceptions to every rule. I'm not saying all of the "super rich" are only concerned with greed. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, a large percentage of the rich convey a "me" mentality.
I can almost bet that you are going to come back and say something to the effect of the exact same being true of the people in the bottom 10%; the ones that are living off the system and not trying to improve their situation. Well, I would agree with you. But that's where we have to have some sort of middle ground.
We need change on both extremes.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 16:21:45 GMT -6
Of course there are always going to be exceptions to every rule. I'm not saying all of the "super rich" are only concerned with greed. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, a large percentage of the rich convey a "me" mentality. I can almost bet that you are going to come back and say something to the effect of the exact same being true of the people in the bottom 10%; the ones that are living off the system and not trying to improve their situation. Well, I would agree with you. But that's where we have to have some sort of middle ground. We need change on both extremes. No, I'm saying your idea of "super-rich" is categorically incorrect. The difference in standard of living between a guy who is at the 90th percentile and a guy at the 50th percentile isn't big (assuming the guy at the 90th percentile isn't living on debt funded faux luxuries). However, the difference between a guy, even at the 99th percentile and a guy at the 99.9999th percentile is freaking enormous. The super-rich line (ability to truly afford a yacht, a house worthy of being on Cribs, a vacation house, a Bentley) is way past the 90th percentile and a decent amount past even the 99th percentile. When you are talking top 10%, most of the people you're talking about are pretty similar to you, it is only a very small group within that top 10% who are truly super-rich. The 99th percentile is somewhere around $350k in income. That will get you a decent life, but it is a vastly different life from the guy with $3.5 million or $35 million in income.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 16:35:51 GMT -6
4) I support your position on this, but let's be realistic, this is not what is happening. Sometimes, yes, but frequently the money is pissed away on needless luxuries (7 houses and 13 cars). Granted, I do realize that there are people who make the houses and cars who have jobs and this is the backbone support for trickledown economic theory but I think it is bullshit. The world would be better off by havin someone like a crook with 3 houses and 4 cars and have the other money going to more noble causes than individual vanity. Did you read the article on HENRY's? Have you ever considered changing your name to Wesley Mouch? I'm reading the article right now. I'll get back to you on that question when I get to that part. It is a lot longer than I first thought.
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Oct 28, 2008 16:59:51 GMT -6
Of course there are always going to be exceptions to every rule. I'm not saying all of the "super rich" are only concerned with greed. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, a large percentage of the rich convey a "me" mentality. I can almost bet that you are going to come back and say something to the effect of the exact same being true of the people in the bottom 10%; the ones that are living off the system and not trying to improve their situation. Well, I would agree with you. But that's where we have to have some sort of middle ground. We need change on both extremes. No, I'm saying your idea of "super-rich" is categorically incorrect. The difference in standard of living between a guy who is at the 90th percentile and a guy at the 50th percentile isn't big (assuming the guy at the 90th percentile isn't living on debt funded faux luxuries). However, the difference between a guy, even at the 99th percentile and a guy at the 99.9999th percentile is freaking enormous. The super-rich line (ability to truly afford a yacht, a house worthy of being on Cribs, a vacation house, a Bentley) is way past the 90th percentile and a decent amount past even the 99th percentile. When you are talking top 10%, most of the people you're talking about are pretty similar to you, it is only a very small group within that top 10% who are truly super-rich. The 99th percentile is somewhere around $350k in income. That will get you a decent life, but it is a vastly different life from the guy with $3.5 million or $35 million in income. Ok, I looked it up on Wikipedia. 1.5% of American households earn above the $250,000 threshold. I guess I figured there were more rich people in America then that. LOL But, still, it doesn't change my original post (except for the numbers). I still believe that that 1.5% can afford to throw in a healthier share. Like I said, it's for the greater good. But I would also stress that there are alot of other changes that we need to make as well. Military spending to start with.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 17:09:59 GMT -6
The top 1% of taxpayers already pay 40% of income taxes, how much more would you like, Mr. Mouch? How much more can they afford to throw in, bince they are clearly carrying their weight in your mind?
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 17:35:42 GMT -6
4) I support your position on this, but let's be realistic, this is not what is happening. Sometimes, yes, but frequently the money is pissed away on needless luxuries (7 houses and 13 cars). Granted, I do realize that there are people who make the houses and cars who have jobs and this is the backbone support for trickledown economic theory but I think it is bullshit. The world would be better off by havin someone like a crook with 3 houses and 4 cars and have the other money going to more noble causes than individual vanity. Did you read the article on HENRY's? Have you ever considered changing your name to Wesley Mouch? I didn't see a Wesley Mouch in the article. You'll have to let me know what you mean by that. It was a pretty good article and I do better understand your stance after reading that, but I still don't pity your situation. Still, as I have been saying all along, the people in the HENRY group aren't the ones I am thinking should ante up on paying their social responsibility (although I see now problem with them paying highr taxes than the real proles, just not TOO much higher). My whole point all along and where I think Obama's tax plan is to heavily tax the people with millions of dollars of income. I am pretty firm on that one. I'm not in your tax bracket, BTR, but some of my relatives are and I can see how this would be discouraging to see that their hard work and dedication could hamper what they have strived to do, but this theme is occurring in all sectors of the population except the "super rich". One one hand, after reading the article, I do realize that it must blow for someone in the HENRY income range to have to piss away a larger portion of their taxes, especially after the work it takes to be in those professions (doctor, lawyer, etc.). On the other hand, the HENRY's must mostly be frustrated in the lot of "upper class proledom". But hey, if you are living modestly and saving up right now there is no reason you won't eventually retire with the finest things in life. Being further down on the prole scale, I'm doing the same thing. Living very modestly and paying off everything I can in hopes that one day I can bitch about making over $200k a year. Another thing that removed a little sympathy when reading the article was the guy Kwan who was complaining about paying $100,000 in taxes on his $375,000. That is not even 27% in taxes, I'd like to know how he pulled that off. Im in a much lower income tax bracket and I pay 25% on my fed taxes. There must be more to it than that because those numbers just don't add up. Regardless, being in my bracket I'd be better off with Obama's plan not only in the amount I'd have to pay but in the amount that would be put into the system by the HENRY's and the "super rich". If McCain is in office it would help the HENRY's somewhat but the "super rich" would really take it to the bank and frankly, I am growing tired of seeing that.
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Oct 28, 2008 17:43:05 GMT -6
The top 1% of taxpayers already pay 40% of income taxes, how much more would you like, Mr. Mouch? How much more can they afford to throw in, bince they are clearly carrying their weight in your mind? That's because they control at least 40% of the wealth in America, Mr. Condescending internet guy.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 17:46:59 GMT -6
The top 1% of taxpayers already pay 40% of income taxes, how much more would you like, Mr. Mouch? How much more can they afford to throw in, bince they are clearly carrying their weight in your mind? That's because they control at least 40% of the wealth in America, Mr. Condescending internet guy. Again, income tax has NOTHING TO DO with wealth. They earn 22% of the income and pay 40% of the income tax.
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Oct 28, 2008 17:49:59 GMT -6
4) I support your position on this, but let's be realistic, this is not what is happening. Sometimes, yes, but frequently the money is pissed away on needless luxuries (7 houses and 13 cars). Granted, I do realize that there are people who make the houses and cars who have jobs and this is the backbone support for trickledown economic theory but I think it is bullshit. The world would be better off by havin someone like a crook with 3 houses and 4 cars and have the other money going to more noble causes than individual vanity. Did you read the article on HENRY's? Have you ever considered changing your name to Wesley Mouch? I looked up Wesley Mouch and that doesn't really apply to me. I am not in support of big government and I am definately not looking for handouts.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 28, 2008 17:55:25 GMT -6
Did you read the article on HENRY's? Have you ever considered changing your name to Wesley Mouch? I didn't see a Wesley Mouch in the article. You'll have to let me know what you mean by that. It was a pretty good article and I do better understand your stance after reading that, but I still don't pity your situation. Still, as I have been saying all along, the people in the HENRY group aren't the ones I am thinking should ante up on paying their social responsibility (although I see now problem with them paying highr taxes than the real proles, just not TOO much higher). My whole point all along and where I think Obama's tax plan is to heavily tax the people with millions of dollars of income. I am pretty firm on that one. I'm not in your tax bracket, BTR, but some of my relatives are and I can see how this would be discouraging to see that their hard work and dedication could hamper what they have strived to do, but this theme is occurring in all sectors of the population except the "super rich". One one hand, after reading the article, I do realize that it must blow for someone in the HENRY income range to have to piss away a larger portion of their taxes, especially after the work it takes to be in those professions (doctor, lawyer, etc.). On the other hand, the HENRY's must mostly be frustrated in the lot of "upper class proledom". But hey, if you are living modestly and saving up right now there is no reason you won't eventually retire with the finest things in life. Being further down on the prole scale, I'm doing the same thing. Living very modestly and paying off everything I can in hopes that one day I can bitch about making over $200k a year. Another thing that removed a little sympathy when reading the article was the guy Kwan who was complaining about paying $100,000 in taxes on his $375,000. That is not even 27% in taxes, I'd like to know how he pulled that off. Im in a much lower income tax bracket and I pay 25% on my fed taxes. There must be more to it than that because those numbers just don't add up. Regardless, being in my bracket I'd be better off with Obama's plan not only in the amount I'd have to pay but in the amount that would be put into the system by the HENRY's and the "super rich". If McCain is in office it would help the HENRY's somewhat but the "super rich" would really take it to the bank and frankly, I am growing tired of seeing that. Did you google Wesley Mouch? He makes a lot of the same arguments that the modern left makes, strong on emotion but with little substantive reason backing them. Obama has said in speech after speech his plan is to go after the guy making $250k. You can rest assured that with a Dem supermajority and Obama in the White House, the threshold will be a helluva lot lower than $250k. The Kwon guy, his average rate is 27%. Your marginal rate is 25% They are different things. The biggest obstacle that a HENRY will have to being rich is taxes. The burden is fairly high now and taxes are far and away my biggest living expense, actually probably more than all of my other expenses combined, and they're set to rise. But I think that in 15 years or so, they will become unberable between federal, state and local. As the baby boomers demand more and more SS money, Medicare benefits and the pensions of those boomers working in government come due, the burden on anyone currently under 40 will be crushing.
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Oct 28, 2008 18:00:32 GMT -6
That's because they control at least 40% of the wealth in America, Mr. Condescending internet guy. Again, income tax has NOTHING TO DO with wealth. They earn 22% of the income and pay 40% of the income tax. I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with wealth. Your income adds to your wealth. Your wealth is how much you are worth. The difference is that the super rich have wealth and income, while the super poor only have income. It's a smoke and mirrors tactic to divert attention away from the fact that you are contributing, proportionally anyway, a fair amount to society. But like I said, most of the super-rich only want what's good for them. I'm out of here in a couple minutes. We'll have to continue this conversation later. Not that it will do much good. I seriously doubt either one of us is going to change each other's opinions. At least we will always have the hawks. LOL One love.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 29, 2008 5:34:07 GMT -6
Again, income tax has NOTHING TO DO with wealth. They earn 22% of the income and pay 40% of the income tax. I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with wealth. Your income adds to your wealth. Your wealth is how much you are worth. The difference is that the super rich have wealth and income, while the super poor only have income. It's a smoke and mirrors tactic to divert attention away from the fact that you are contributing, proportionally anyway, a fair amount to society. But like I said, most of the super-rich only want what's good for them. I'm out of here in a couple minutes. We'll have to continue this conversation later. Not that it will do much good. I seriously doubt either one of us is going to change each other's opinions. At least we will always have the hawks. LOL One love. Hey Roxx, I think you just hit on something huge dude! Obviously, our beloved Hawkeye football team have been struggling to keep their collective heads above water and Penn State is just eating everybody else's lunch, right? Where is the equality here? Should we not be petitioning the Big Ten and NCAA to have our win-loss record subsidized by Penn State? If they just transfer one of their wins to us and take one of our losses, we would be at 6-2 and Penn State would still be in first place at 8-1. Yeah, I know what some of you (Ralphie, Hoffa, IAMMR and you other do it yourselfers) will undoubtedly be saying....."But Iowafan1...Penn State earned their perfect record via preparation and hard work and all and our beloved Hawkeyes managed to constantly turn the ball over in the red zone and generally couldn't execute.....they earned it and we didn't.....they deserve it and we don't......blah blah blah" to which I thoughtfully retort "Darn it....our guys work hard too. I don't think we should be penalized for turnovers and lack of execution against Pitt, Michigan State and Northwestern." Screw your "We have the freedom to succeed or fail" rants! Just hand us the damn win we didn't earn and shut up!
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 29, 2008 6:31:17 GMT -6
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with wealth. Your income adds to your wealth. Your wealth is how much you are worth. The difference is that the super rich have wealth and income, while the super poor only have income. It's a smoke and mirrors tactic to divert attention away from the fact that you are contributing, proportionally anyway, a fair amount to society. But like I said, most of the super-rich only want what's good for them. I'm out of here in a couple minutes. We'll have to continue this conversation later. Not that it will do much good. I seriously doubt either one of us is going to change each other's opinions. At least we will always have the hawks. LOL One love. Dude, your tax return does not have a line item for wealth, it only taxes your income. Wealth and income are related in that confiscation of income prevents accumulation of wealth. The elite, ultra wealthy in this country have very little income, and they have the ability to structure their income in tax favorable ways, as they are the capitalists who can decide they'll take their money in dividends or wages. 99.5%+ of the population has no such ability.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 29, 2008 6:35:15 GMT -6
Hey Roxx, I think you just hit on something huge dude! Obviously, our beloved Hawkeye football team have been struggling to keep their collective heads above water and Penn State is just eating everybody else's lunch, right? Where is the equality here? Should we not be petitioning the Big Ten and NCAA to have our win-loss record subsidized by Penn State? If they just transfer one of their wins to us and take one of our losses, we would be at 6-2 and Penn State would still be in first place at 8-1. Yeah, I know what some of you (Ralphie, Hoffa, IAMMR and you other do it yourselfers) will undoubtedly be saying....."But Iowafan1...Penn State earned their perfect record via preparation and hard work and all and our beloved Hawkeyes managed to constantly turn the ball over in the red zone and generally couldn't execute.....they earned it and we didn't.....they deserve it and we don't......blah blah blah" to which I thoughtfully retort "Darn it....our guys work hard too. I don't think we should be penalized for turnovers and lack of execution against Pitt, Michigan State and Northwestern." Screw your "We have the freedom to succeed or fail" rants! Just hand us the damn win we didn't earn and shut up! Sorry Iowafan, people have tried to make the analogy using grades (good student should give bad student GPA points) and now sports teams. I don't know about these guys, but the vast majority of liberals value equality more than freedom and a more evenly divided pie is more desirable than a bigger, less evenly distributed pie. $8 trillion in GDP split evenly with $35k going to everyone is more desirable than $14 trillion in GDP with some top people making millions and bottom people making $20k.
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Oct 29, 2008 8:18:58 GMT -6
[/quote]
1) Yes, charity should be forced to some degree with out tax money. I don't believe people would give money to help out their fellow man on their own good will. Some people would and will, but not most.
Likewise, do you think we should force people to spend their money on a war that has no clear purpose other than empirical pursuit? Surely you don't believe we are in Iraq to liberate their people, find WMD's or get rid of Saddam Hussien?
2) Freeloading could get worse, I don't like it but I do see it as a possiblity. However, if the inability to pay medical bills is keeping people from being able to afford shelter, I think some help is justified.
3) I don't know what makes you think "Your income is suddenly deemed distributable". Again, I don't know if you are reading my posts or not but I am not talking about people who make $200k. They are well off and upper middle/lower upper class citizens. I am talking about hitting the people living well beyond their means. I have made that point several times and you seem to be completely ignoring that point.
4) I support your position on this, but let's be realistic, this is not what is happening. Sometimes, yes, but frequently the money is pissed away on needless luxuries (7 houses and 13 cars). Granted, I do realize that there are people who make the houses and cars who have jobs and this is the backbone support for trickledown economic theory but I think it is bullshit. The world would be better off by havin someone like a crook with 3 houses and 4 cars and have the other money going to more noble causes than individual vanity.
Lastly, what ways do you have in mind to shore up support for the weakest links?[/quote]
Twine,
Help me out as I might be getting mixed signals from your posts. In a prior post, I got the impression redistribution was good to help those in need. Above, it almost sounds like you're looking for a more fair/balanced tax system?
The most equitable tax system there could be is a simple flat tax across all people, or a flat sales tax based on purchases.
In your view, is it possible define at what point or level are people living beyond their means? For example, someone making $200k in CA might have a worse std of living (given high housing costs) then someone in the midwest at the same salary. Someone making $200k in a large metro (NYC) might not be better off than someone making the same amount in the rural SE. Just using $200k as an example only. You can replace it with whatever $ amount you'd like.
To point 4, I can see your point too -- there are going to be outliers in both categories of demographics. There prob. are very philanthropic folks making tons of $; but also those that are living it up and not contributing as well. Same on the lower income side. There are prob. those trying to better things; and those that would rather not go that route.
If we're talking redistribution, let's be clear that the redistributing goes to those that are trying to be productive and not going to consider it another handout or excuse. I oppose it if the end result is a greater level of dependency. Hope that makes sense.
To your last question, I would rather see funds gravitate towards giving hope through efforts (teach a man how to fish so to speak). Maybe overhaul of the educational system. Make it more job oriented, remove the political correctness clogging things up, get back our competitive advantage in education.
In my view, flowing money to our weakest links may not necessarily bring them up. There is going to need to be some efforts involved.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Oct 29, 2008 9:42:07 GMT -6
|
|