That has to be one of the most ridiculous “slippery slope” arguments I have ever heard.
Great, then you agree that the supposed initiative killing nature of small tax increases is nonsense. BTW, I’d agree that a top rate of 90% or 95% or something like that would be initiative killing.
The rest is another discussion.
Okay, I’ll call your bluff. Why?
At just what point do you think the U.S. government is going to stop trying to increase tax revenues and call a halt to its efforts to expand?
It’s never gonna happen. You know it and I know it, and I’ve got a hundred years of history to back me up. There’s no slippery slope involved; we’ve already done slid.
Frankly, I’m amazed you would even challenge me on this. Everyone knows the govenment always wants more money and to increase its size and scope. The primary question between the two parties is how much is it going to be allowed to do so.
My husband and are in that range. I would be willing to pay additional taxes.
Everyone who thinks paying more taxes is the right thing to do for the country has been sending in that extra check to the IRS regularly correct? I mean, they won’t say no to it.
So, if you really believe it, I suggest you get that check book out.
Which is funny, because here at the state level, they’re hell bent for getting OUT of the IT business. They just want program managers and contractors. (Much to my chagrin.)
This type of demagoguery is one of the things I most despise about the tactics of the left. There’s a vast difference between being stupid and lazy on the one hand, and choosing to work at a 9-to-5 job on the other. I said that many people (most, in fact) simply do not want to take on the challenges involved in trying to become business owners or high-income earners, thus they choose instead to become employees who work regular hours and leave the job behind when they leave work at the end of their work day. It is both dishonest and deceitful for you to portray what I said in this way.
As far as CEO’s or business owners or whoever making many times more than some of their imployees, the reason for this is the value they bring to bear as the result of hard work they’ve done in the past which has brought them to the point where their efforts are many times more valuable than the lower echelon workers in their field. I will admit that oftentimes it happens that people in high level positions do not work that hard physically. But they have huge pressures and countless complex problems to contend with, and the decisions they make can result in their companies failing, succeeding or simply remaining static. And the decisions they make can affect whether or not their companies’ employees even have jobs. Further, they don’t just fall into those jobs for no reason. The vast majority of time, people become CEO’s and/or highly successful businessmen because of the hard work and discipline they’ve exercised all their lives. They worked hard and studied in school, they worked hard and applied themselves on the job, they looked for and sought to take advantage of opportunities whenever opportunities presented themselves, and they constantly worked to learn as much about not only their own jobs but the jobs of the people they worked for so that when the time came, they’d be ready to take over the reins.
Now contrast this with the employees at the lumberyard, or the produce manager at the grocery store, or the employees at your local tag agency, and there is a world of difference between the work they do and the work that your typical CEO or high-level businessman does. But that does not in any way mean that any of these people are lazy or stupid. They’ve simply chosen a less stressful, less demanding, and, frankly, less mentally challenging way of life than have the high income earners. And there’s nothing whatever wrong with that.
And I’ll tell you something else: It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference from your own earning standpoint how much money CEO’s or anyone else makes. You get paid according to your value in the marketplace. Wealth is created, not parcelled out from a sum that would otherwise belong to everyone equally. I will not earn one dollar more in my life because Bill Gates is worth fifty billion dollars, and I wouldn’t earn one dollar more if he lost every cent. The money that he makes, or the money that the CEO of GM makes, or the money that Donald Trump makes has no bearing whatsoever on what anyone else will be able to make. Think about that, and remember it! You and everyone else earn what you and your skills and knowledge are worth in the marketplace. Stop being jealous and feeling cheated because somebody else has more than you do. You won’t make any more even if they lose every penny. So what it all boils down to is either you recognize this and stop feeling cheated because somebody has more than you do, or admit that your resentment is based upon nothing more than a childish resentment of the fact that somebody has more goodies than you do, and this despite the fact that he did more than you were willing to do in order to get them in the first place.
Well, that really doesn’t mean much in the greater scheme of things, though, does it? Wouldn’t you agree that on the whole most state and federal agencies and departments strive to spend all their budgets so as to get bigger budgets next year? And strive to hire more employees next year? And strive constantly to increase the scope of their responsibilities? And wouldn’t you agree that politicans are constantly seeking to find new ways to buy votes with the people’s money? I’m sorry if you personally are being harmed by your state’s having decided to farm out as much IT as it can - probably out of motivation to be done with a particularly troublesome aspect of its operations - but I really don’t think that simply hiring contractors to do government work equals a meaningful and deliberate effort to reduce the size and scope of government.
Amazingly well reasoned arguement. I guess you *can *squeeze blood from a turnip.
Then again, some people think that sharing the pain of fixing the US of A is the right way to go, instead of having free riders in the system.
Jesus Christ. $250 K is a king’s ransom in Canada, My wife and I are professionals working in the public service and we pull in about 70% of that combined! And also our income taxes are higher. And mortgage interest isn’t tax deductible. And we have a federal sales tax, and provincial sales tax. And gas is much higher. And alcohol. And tobacco.
And.
And.
And.
Raise your fucking tax rates and quit fucking up the rest of the world.
Thanks.
I gather that the large percentage of free riders, those that make under a certain amount of money a year - are to be exempt from sharing the pain.
I’ve yet to meet anyone who believes in the need for higher taxes actually put their money where their mouth is. I’m sure there are some, but I don’t hear any of them here (or anywhere else for that matter).
Their assertion that “it wouldn’t work”, “those evil [insert political leaning here] won’t pay in any extra, you have to force them!” etc. means squat seeing as they don’t really believe what they themselves spout. If they did, they’d be scanning in proof of it in the form of a cancelled check or electronic transfer to ImageShack to share with those less enlightened.
But, but…You have it so much better in Canada, right? That is what all the higher taxes have afforded you and why we in the US should raise federal income taxes right? Your healthcare is first rate and you have a much higher standard of living. Hell, you’re rich by American standards right?
Oh, what’s that? Not so much? How does that work?
This attitude confuses me. Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood, but you are against tax increases of any stripe on principal, regardless of that income brackets ability to pay?
If this is the case I have a lot of questions for you, but I want to make sure I have this first part right.
Or hell, if *anyone *believes the statement above, I have questions.
Please fight my ignorance.
1% of nothing still equals nothing. The problem is that few people understand the tax code and even fewer understand the concept of regressive taxes. Add into that the tax credits that are recieved by people who pay 0 in taxes yet get a “refund”. There is a way to deal with this and it has been laid out in the fair tax movement. Unfortunately we have been conditioned to reject this plan because it is different and we as a group do not understand it. It should be a bigger part of public debate however too many people dismiss it as a consumption tax alone.
Your position fails basic logic. It simply does not follow that one doesn’t believe a large body of people (including yourself) should pay more tax if you don’t voluntarily pay more yourself.
Situations in which a massed effort is a good idea but a singular effort in the same direction is a foolish gesture are commonplace.
You’ll get no debate from me on the topic.
“We’ll get this $250,000 grant to virtualize all our Servers!”
“But won’t you have the replacement funds sent to you for the servers you have at the end of their lifecycle?”
“Yes”
“But you’re not allowed to actually send any savings BACK”
“Yes”
“How does this improve things again?”
Believe me, the size and scope of my local part of the government is reducing itself quite nicely as the rats are departing the ship. I haven’t left because the rest of the family relies on my (steady) income, at 15 years in, the retirement isn’t easy to walk away from, and the earned leave is ‘nice’ to have.
The big issue I have, is that the Contractor gets paid twice as much to accomplish something in a short period of time, then when they leave, the knowledge to maintain the new bauble goes with them. Why spend $250,000 to get a project done in 4 months, when it could have been done in a year with one $100,000 employee, and an the end of the year that employee can go on to doing other things?.
meh, enough of this tangent, it’ll just make me crabby.
‘Free riders’? You mean the ones who pay a larger portion of their salary in taxes than their bosses do? Warren Buffett said he paid 18% taxes, while his secretary paid 30%. Sure, Buffett paid more dollars; but it’s the percentage that matters. Someone making $50,000 per year who pays 30% taxes has $35,000 to live on and to support the economy. Someone making $1 million who is taxed at 18% has $820,000 to live on and support the economy. Living expenses (housing, food, shelter, gas to get to work), economy-supporting purchases, sales tax on those purchases, and everything else make up a far greater percentage of a person’s income, who makes a small amount of money vs. someone who makes a large amount of money. This is why taxes should be progressive instead of regressive. And remember that these ‘free riders’ are the ones who are making The Rich rich.
The thing is though that Warren Buffet has money invested in ways that the government has legislated as tax loopholes. The government does this in order to stimulate investment in certain areas, which in turn supports the economy and provides jobs. If Buffet simply had a billion-dollar-per-year salary and that was the end of it, he would be paying the top rate.
It’s really disingenuous of Buffet to compare his tax situation with that of his secretary and suggest that the rates he pays are unfair. I suspect duplicity on Buffet’s part, since he’s obviously taking full advantage of whatever tax breaks he’s entitled to while simultaneously bemoaning the unfairness of it all. IMO, this is allows him to continue making money hand over fist while avoiding the ire of the masses by appearing to be on their side. As has been suggested upthread, if he feels the system is so unfair and that he isn’t paying his rightful share, then why doesn’t he just cut the government a check for whatever additional amount he believes he should be paying?
No. I mean the high percentage (>45%*) of households that pay zero federal income tax. Either “sharing the pain” means everyone, or it’s a lie.
*cite: here