Conquer Club

Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

because it is the most instantly gratifying? It makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside too!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because no one else has enough money. But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not. The wealthy have also benefitted far more from previous tax breaks.

but really, its not just a matter of who has more money, its a matter of how they got the money.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

I thought their taxes had been steadily decreasing. If that's the case, how has it helped your country economically.

Your country is in a shitload of debt. That's not a problem that will be fixed solely by cutting spending.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I feel someone is about to reply to Aradhus saying, "OH YEA? READ ANTHEM BY AYN RAND!!"

In which case, know that it is a novel and a fictional one at that based off the views of a lady that seemed to be pretty batty, if I say so myself.

-rd

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because they don't need it as much as young, poor children with stupid-ass parents do

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because some people believe-

"From each according to their means,
To each according to their needs."

Extra credit to anyone who knows who it was who said this..........

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because some people believe-

"From each according to their means,
To each according to their needs."

Extra credit to anyone who knows who it was who said this..........

You said it; just now.

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because they don't need it as much as young, poor children with stupid-ass parents do

I understand you concerns here, but do you likewise understand that, if the stoopit ass parents realize they don't have to be responsible because the gov't will just throw rich peoples money at their kids, they will be even stoopiter? We have to look at long term also.

There is a better way that encourages parents to take responsibility, and likewise does not rob Peter

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because they don't need it as much as young, poor children with stupid-ass parents do

I understand you concerns here, but do you likewise understand that, if the stoopit ass parents realize they don't have to be responsible because the gov't will just throw rich peoples money at their kids, they will be even stoopiter? We have to look at long term also.

There is a better way that encourages parents to take responsibility, and likewise does not rob Peter

I'm not saying give the parents the money. I'm saying give it to the kids indirectly. Allow poor kids to get a good education, invest a lot of money into research for cures to children's cancer, make sure EVERY kid has a roof over their head and food on their table. Those rick pricks piss me off knowing there are homeless kids fighting for food out there.

I don't think we should hand money to the poor, but I'm definitely a socialist in the fact that everyone under 21 should at least be given the same opportunity for schooling, healthcare, etc.

Army of GOD wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because they don't need it as much as young, poor children with stupid-ass parents do

I understand you concerns here, but do you likewise understand that, if the stoopit ass parents realize they don't have to be responsible because the gov't will just throw rich peoples money at their kids, they will be even stoopiter? We have to look at long term also.

There is a better way that encourages parents to take responsibility, and likewise does not rob Peter

I'm not saying give the parents the money. I'm saying give it to the kids indirectly. Allow poor kids to get a good education, invest a lot of money into research for cures to children's cancer, make sure EVERY kid has a roof over their head and food on their table. Those rick pricks piss me off knowing there are homeless kids fighting for food out there.

I don't think we should hand money to the poor, but I'm definitely a socialist in the fact that everyone under 21 should at least be given the same opportunity for schooling, healthcare, etc.

I don't think we should give the parents the money either. I'm talking about the gov't moving in "to raise/provide for the child". It takes away a lot of things only parents can teach their children.

and then, as soon as everyone under 21 gets the same opportunity for school/healthcare, we can push is to make it 25 years old, right?

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because they don't need it as much as young, poor children with stupid-ass parents do

I understand you concerns here, but do you likewise understand that, if the stoopit ass parents realize they don't have to be responsible because the gov't will just throw rich peoples money at their kids, they will be even stoopiter? We have to look at long term also.

There is a better way that encourages parents to take responsibility, and likewise does not rob Peter

I'm not saying give the parents the money. I'm saying give it to the kids indirectly. Allow poor kids to get a good education, invest a lot of money into research for cures to children's cancer, make sure EVERY kid has a roof over their head and food on their table. Those rick pricks piss me off knowing there are homeless kids fighting for food out there.

I don't think we should hand money to the poor, but I'm definitely a socialist in the fact that everyone under 21 should at least be given the same opportunity for schooling, healthcare, etc.

I don't think we should give the parents the money either. I'm talking about the gov't moving in "to raise/provide for the child". It takes away a lot of things only parents can teach their children.

and then, as soon as everyone under 21 gets the same opportunity for school/healthcare, we can push is to make it 25 years old, right?

I never said that the government should raise the kid, but just allow for the opportunity for that kid to get an education if he/she wants it, and if that kid is suffering for him/her to get off of the streets and into a home.

Though, I don't necessarily have a perfect solution for that right now. If the government hired me to think this through better I'd do it, but I don't see the point pragmatically in furthering some ideology that has little chance of making it out of this internet forum.

Haha wow, apathy has never hit me as hard as it just did with that last post.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because no one else has enough money. But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not. The wealthy have also benefitted far more from previous tax breaks.

but really, its not just a matter of who has more money, its a matter of how they got the money.

No, it's actually because of people who believe that the government has to provide everything for everybody.

Army of GOD wrote:

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because some people believe-

"From each according to their means,
To each according to their needs."

Extra credit to anyone who knows who it was who said this..........

You said it; just now.

Oh, if you are familiar with the phrase, then you know that this is not true. It has been said in slightly different forms as well as the one I stated. Always stated by the Marxists. Of course, you already know this, and believe it as well.

Army of God wrote:I'm definitely a socialist

It seems such a simple concept, the above "means and needs" quote. The problem with the socialist, is that in order for it to ever actually work every person must chose of their own free will to participate. There in is the problem.

Consider 10 people who chose to live a communal (socialist) system. To pool all their resources and then divide those resources evenly among the 10. The problem happens when one of the ten decide one day they deserve an extra apple, or a larger share of land for some idea or work they did that was above what anyone else provided. Very quickly the 10 end up having a problem and that one person has to be forced to either conform to the system or be purged from the system.

Imagine trying to force a million people, or 10 million people, or 300 million people. And force would certainly be required. Human nature dictates this. So, there can be no Utopian society where people are forced by coercion or the bayonet, to participate.

In a Capitalist economic system, individuals may certainly choose to practice a communal system with like minded people and the society on a whole will not suffer one bit. But take a Socialist economic system and allow individuals to take more than the rest and the whole society will break down eventually. Either everyone else wants what those "elites" have, or the elites end up ruling over the plebes, or a combination of both.

Army of God wrote:same opportunity for schooling

Everyone have "equal" education?

Is every teacher as good as every other teacher?
Is every school as good as every other school?

How can it be equal when not all human beings have equal talents to begin with?
We can't make it all equal. We can only try to make equal opportunity, not equal results.

Anything society tries to do will find people falling "through the cracks". This is because no matter how equal the opportunities we make in society, there will never be equal results. Because people are unique. Everyone is good at some things, not so good at other things.

Army of God wrote:healthcare

Sure, if one is sick or hurt or wants preventative medicine, certainly. Go to a doctor. You want equal health care for people, I would ask, does every doctor have the same ability?
Is every hospital as good as any other hospital?
Is every clinic the same as every other clinic?

Since individual talent is unique, how can society ever guarantee that each individual will have the same health care?

We could certainly give everyone the same insurance. That doesn't really equal health care though, or access to it.

Is every parent as good as every other parent?

Is every job as good as every other job?

Where is the equality you speak of? Where can it be found? How is it even possible?

Society will not be able to fix any of these things, not in our lifetime at least. What is important for individuals to remember, is that they have to make the best choices they can for themselves. There is not much else individuals can do after that. What is not "equal" is when some individuals tell other individuals "This is how it is going to be done", and expect everyone else to just go along.

If you are worried about poor kids living on the streets, or going hungry, then open a shelter. Solicit donations, apply for government grants, use your own money to fund the shelter.
You want kids to have better educations, then solicit donations, apply for government grants, use your own money to fund and provide scholarships. Do whatever you feel is right for yourself.

You don't think you are taxed enough? Then give away the difference between what you are taxed and what you think you should be taxed. Give that difference away to charity. It would probably be better served to society doing it that way than to give it to the Government.

For every extra dollar taxed of the "rich" is every extra dollar not spent in the local economy, or to provide more jobs, or to give away to charity.

Government wastes more money than anything else. Giving them more will not solve anything. Likely, it will only make things worse.

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because some people believe-

"From each according to their means,
To each according to their needs."

Extra credit to anyone who knows who it was who said this..........

Yes, that's right.

Anyone who thinks that we should increase taxes on the rich are communists.

patches70 wrote:

Army of God wrote:I'm definitely a socialist

It seems such a simple concept, the above "means and needs" quote. The problem with the socialist, is that in order for it to ever actually work every person must chose of their own free will to participate. There in is the problem.

Consider 10 people who chose to live a communal (socialist) system. To pool all their resources and then divide those resources evenly among the 10. The problem happens when one of the ten decide one day they deserve an extra apple, or a larger share of land for some idea or work they did that was above what anyone else provided. Very quickly the 10 end up having a problem and that one person has to be forced to either conform to the system or be purged from the system.

Imagine trying to force a million people, or 10 million people, or 300 million people. And force would certainly be required. Human nature dictates this. So, there can be no Utopian society where people are forced by coercion or the bayonet, to participate.

In a Capitalist economic system, individuals may certainly choose to practice a communal system with like minded people and the society on a whole will not suffer one bit. But take a Socialist economic system and allow individuals to take more than the rest and the whole society will break down eventually. Either everyone else wants what those "elites" have, or the elites end up ruling over the plebes, or a combination of both.

I agree 100%. And I know my idea here isn't well-thought out or perfect, but I'm sure you agree that there are large discrepancies in the educational opportunities for young people. There's no reason a kid with rich parents should be taught in a high school with graduates from Harvard being the teachers while a poor kid from the inner-city goes to some shitty ass school where the teachers couldn't give less of a shit just because their parents are fucking idiots and made stupid decisions and then had kids to just make everything worse.

Also, I'm going to rage if someone gives me the "gods and clods" shit.

Army of God wrote:same opportunity for schooling

We can only try to make equal opportunity

That's what I said. Kids with rich parents shouldn't be able to walk into an ivy league school merely because their parents can pay 4 years worth of tuition in cash while a poor kid has to go nearly insane doing work and shit only to get a gargantuan loan to go to the same school.

Army of God wrote:healthcare

Sure, if one is sick or hurt or wants preventative medicine, certainly. Go to a doctor. You want equal health care for people, I would ask, does every doctor have the same ability?
Is every hospital as good as any other hospital?
Is every clinic the same as every other clinic?

Since individual talent is unique, how can society ever guarantee that each individual will have the same health care?

Doctors go through, you know, medical school. I would hope that a doctor that has his/her license knows what the f*ck their doing in any basic case.

If you are worried about poor kids living on the streets, or going hungry, then open a shelter. Solicit donations, apply for government grants, use your own money to fund the shelter.
You want kids to have better educations, then solicit donations, apply for government grants, use your own money to fund and provide scholarships. Do whatever you feel is right for yourself.


You don't think you are taxed enough? Then give away the difference between what you are taxed and what you think you should be taxed. Give that difference away to charity. It would probably be better served to society doing it that way than to give it to the Government.

wut

For every extra dollar taxed of the "rich" is every extra dollar not spent in the local economy, or to provide more jobs, or to give away to charity.

Ok, I feel like this argument for not taxing the rich is so abhorrently flawed. Rich people don't spend money on local economies. They're not gonna buy shit at the local drug store. They want the high-priced shit. They're feeding the rich more money, knowing the rich people that they give their money to are just going to give it right back to them.

Army of GOD wrote:
Doctors go through, you know, medical school. I would hope that a doctor that has his/her license knows what the f*ck their doing in any basic case.

LOL

Let me ask you-

Q: What do you call a guy who finishes dead last in his class in Medical School?

A: Doctor.

yeah, keep hoping, but if you think doctor A is just as good as doctor B or C or D, then you are living in an imaginary world. Some doctors are good, some are not so good. But when you are sick or hurt, you get what you get, and it will probably be better than nothing.

Iliad wrote:Anyone who thinks that we should increase taxes on the rich are communists.

Look at you getting all indignant. I didn't say that, I only answered the OP's question.

There are many who would think on the surface that the statement-
"From each according to their means
To each according to their needs"
makes some sort of sense. However, most are unaware of what this is describing or where this thinking comes from or understand the consequences of this philosophy.

An no extra credit for you since you didn't name who it was that put forth this ideal.

Army of God wrote:Ok, I feel like this argument for not taxing the rich is so abhorrently flawed. Rich people don't spend money on local economies. They're not gonna buy shit at the local drug store. They want the high-priced shit. They're feeding the rich more money, knowing the rich people that they give their money to are just going to give it right back to them.

It doesn't matter if they are buying high priced items or even where they are spending their money. Rich people buy stuff that is made by other people who would not otherwise be able to draw a paycheck if those rich people aren't buying anything.

For every dollar you tax a business is a dollar less they could be using to hire more people, or give raises, or any other number of things that will benefit the actual workers and the local community than is served by giving it to the government to pay the interest on the national debt.

You really think Government is going to be somehow less wasteful if they are given more money?

Army of God wrote:wut

I don't know. You are going on about how terrible and unequal it is and that government has to do something about it. I am saying don't wait for the government to do something, you do something about it. You can if you want. If you really believe, then go out and make a difference yourself. You can't help everyone but you can make a world of difference for anyone you can help.

You just can't force others to do anything.

The "tax the rich more" thinking is only looking at the short term, only looking out for one group or segment of society.

That short term gains can be destroyed by long term consequences.
Helping one segment or group hurts another segment or group.

I mean look at the US's own politicians and tax cheats as it is. Congressman parking yachts in other states to avoid taxes, taking kickbacks, using the very tax shelters that they wrote the laws for, exempting themselves from legislation that everyone else is bound by and many other unjust actions. I think,
Government has a lot of cleaning up of itself before it can ever be of an real use for solving societies ills.

You are putting a lot of faith into human beings that are, frankly, seduced by "power" and are not in touch with economic realities all too often.
While most of the rest of the non-elites have a far too limited understanding of economics in general to make any sort of informed opinion and based those opinions on the most emotional news article written by people who have an agenda of their own.

I believe the Federal Gov't should have schools that anyone who wants to should be able to go k-12. I would prefer a system where the parents can opt-in, rather than opt-out to a private school. It would be more realistic if we could live within our means again and free up one of the parents so that homeschooling is more likely an option. We could do this by re-imbursing the working parent a large chunk (for home schooling) at maybe half the price the gov't was investing in that child in the public system.

Phatscotty wrote:I believe the Federal Gov't should have schools that anyone who wants to should be able to go k-12. I would prefer a system where the parents can opt-in, rather than opt-out to a private school. It would be more realistic if we could live within our means again and free up one of the parents so that homeschooling is more likely an option. We could do this by re-imbursing the working parent a large chunk (for home schooling) at maybe half the price the gov't was investing in that child in the public system.

Why do you think home schooling would be better than public school? I think half the benefits of school is actually learning how to socialise with other people - Do not see how home schooling can help anyone in that department

It seems such a simple concept, the above "means and needs" quote. The problem with the socialist, is that in order for it to ever actually work every person must chose of their own free will to participate. There in is the problem.

Consider 10 people who chose to live a communal (socialist) system. To pool all their resources and then divide those resources evenly among the 10. The problem happens when one of the ten decide one day they deserve an extra apple, or a larger share of land for some idea or work they did that was above what anyone else provided. Very quickly the 10 end up having a problem and that one person has to be forced to either conform to the system or be purged from the system.

The wonderful thing about making an anecdote to serve as proof, is that you get to argue what you what and posit it as true. The simple point is that in small enough groups of people, such as the one you have described, communal behavior has been displayed just as regularly as an other form of economic organization.

To make an equally absurd anecdote, let us flip the script and make a system where people must use currency to buy and sell goods. Some people will decide they need to obtain resources in order to trade. Others will decide that they need to tend to the food and supplies. Still others will try to specialize in particular skills so that they can benefit. The problem is that one day they decide their skills are not being valued highly enough and they are forced to coerce change out of someone else because everyone seeks out their own specific economic niches.

This is why anecdotes serve as very faulty proof, because you can get them to say whatever you want depending on the angle you want to spin.

In a Capitalist economic system, individuals may certainly choose to practice a communal system with like minded people and the society on a whole will not suffer one bit. But take a Socialist economic system and allow individuals to take more than the rest and the whole society will break down eventually. Either everyone else wants what those "elites" have, or the elites end up ruling over the plebes, or a combination of both.

It is probably worth you defining what you view as Socialist at this point. Obviously some people argue that the welfare state, is a socialist enterprise, but surely that is too specific to be a definition. At the same time, you would probably be making a bit of a strawman if you argued that the former U.S.S.R. or Cuba/North Korea are socialist (by simply lumping these different countries into a simple term. Id offer that perhaps we could consider more mixed economies to be socialist in nature, perhaps the Scandinavian countries if youd like?

Where is the equality you speak of? Where can it be found? How is it even possible?

Society will not be able to fix any of these things, not in our lifetime at least. What is important for individuals to remember, is that they have to make the best choices they can for themselves. There is not much else individuals can do after that. What is not "equal" is when some individuals tell other individuals "This is how it is going to be done", and expect everyone else to just go along.

If you are worried about poor kids living on the streets, or going hungry, then open a shelter. Solicit donations, apply for government grants, use your own money to fund the shelter.
You want kids to have better educations, then solicit donations, apply for government grants, use your own money to fund and provide scholarships. Do whatever you feel is right for yourself.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the idea of personal responsibility. Probably in most cases it should be taken more seriously than it is. Having said that, personal responsibility does not solve the problem of a lack of equality. You are implying that it does by putting it after the comments about fixing society. To argue that one goes without the other or that to choose one is to not choose the other is simplistic at best. You are right that we cannot ensure equal results, but the majority of actions that have been done to improve standard of living are not taken under the assurance that everyone will have equal outcomes. Again that is being incredibly simplistic, as what you have already said is a readily accepted truism, people are not born exactly the same. When people try to increase the general welfare of society, they are doing so to try and make things better, albeit often in a very undefined manner. Better does not imply equal for most people, so even when discussing legislation it isn't accurate to say that it is.

You don't think you are taxed enough? Then give away the difference between what you are taxed and what you think you should be taxed. Give that difference away to charity. It would probably be better served to society doing it that way than to give it to the Government.

For every extra dollar taxed of the "rich" is every extra dollar not spent in the local economy, or to provide more jobs, or to give away to charity.

Government wastes more money than anything else. Giving them more will not solve anything. Likely, it will only make things worse.

The idea that rich people do not need to be taxed at the rate they do, is a very strange assumption considering the vast majority of people who say it aren't rich themselves. How so much of the country has bought into that patchwork of beliefs is a very interesting thing in and of itself. If you consider the state and federal tax rates for the United States, the US is certainly not one of the highest taxed countries in the world. However, any taxation imposed on individuals is likely to come under scrutiny and is certainly worth debating if the taxing is too much.

In my opinion it is not, not necessarily out of an ideological leanings, I respect the idea that a man ought to be able to enjoy the fruits of his labors just as much as I respect the idea of each according to his ability. The issue is probably decided on what criteria one labels for success in terms of the economy and more broadly the society itself.

I have always sort of bought into the idea that Americans like the idea of the American Dream. Work hard, and the next generation will benefit and have a better standard of living than the one you enjoyed. However, this concept seems to work best in a relatively stable economic hierarchy because economic mobility is greater. As you have implied before, if there is no incentive to improve, why will people do it? The problem is, the United States is increasingly becoming a country with diminished economic mobility. Additionally, the fact that wealthy individuals spend more per capita and create jobs neglects that they save much more per capita as well. Sure, I doubt you would find many people who would argue against a multimillionaire creating jobs or spurring economic activity, but when the wealth is being set aside, it does no one favors in the wider economic picture.

The rich do not need to be taxed more because of any of the things I have mentioned. It is certainly true that they are taxed at a higher rate than their proportion of economic output. They are not suffering because of it. The United States has a vested interest in making sure those individuals continue to do all of the great economic things people often ascribe to them. They are doing so in the current economy, so different arguments have to be laid as to why they should be benefiting from a reduction in taxes.

About Us:

We are producers of values. We work hard and are competent. We deal with others on the basis of values and free choice. We benefit others. We never usurp values from others. We deliver values to others. We provide values: we give much more than we take. We are fair and just. We respect the privacy, lives, and property of others. We love life, value love, and strive for happiness. We are honest. We are good. We are innocent.

About Them:

They are destroyers of values. They are lazy and incompetent. They deal with others on the basis of usurpation and force. They harm others. They live by usurping values from others. They consume values: they take much more than they give. They are unfair and unjust. They violate the privacy, lives, and property of others. They hate life, envy love, and strive for unearned power. They are dishonest. They are bad. They are Guilty.

radiojake wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I believe the Federal Gov't should have schools that anyone who wants to should be able to go k-12. I would prefer a system where the parents can opt-in, rather than opt-out to a private school. It would be more realistic if we could live within our means again and free up one of the parents so that homeschooling is more likely an option. We could do this by re-imbursing the working parent a large chunk (for home schooling) at maybe half the price the gov't was investing in that child in the public system.

Why do you think home schooling would be better than public school? I think half the benefits of school is actually learning how to socialise with other people - Do not see how home schooling can help anyone in that department

I did not say that. there is benefit to socializing with other kids, however, that does not justify 300 billion dollars of spending, does it? I mean, the home schooled child can go outside and play with their neighbors, free of charge. Not to mention most home school communities take it upon themselves to meet up every Friday with larger groups for projects and field trips, and it only costs a couple dollars.

I don't want to get into what is better between home schooling and public schooling (as far as publiuc schooling goes, there is nothing that is WORSE!) That aside, it's about the freedom of choice. Parents should opt-in to the public system, rather than opt-out.

PLAYER57832 wrote:But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Please expand on this idea.

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Please expand on this idea.

Get ready for a lesson in Biology