Purely for the sake of debate (just to parrot certain talking points I’ve heard before) I am going to take an opposing side for a moment to bring light to some underpinning issues.
Say I am a strong man:
-I don’t really want the bridge in the first place. Why should we strong types have to be tired at all when it’s mainly the weak women using the bridge? Let them build it.
-It’s not my fault if I happened to grow up into a strong man. There’s nothing stopping anyone else from putting in the time and effort into gaining strength. Weak women chose not to put in the effort and therefore have to rely on everyone else.
-Why should I bother expending effort into making a bridge? That’s a waste of resources. There’s nothing good over there anyway. Instead, everyone should come help me build my tree fortress. It’ll help us maintain defense against the enemy.
And that is where you are totally wrong. He earned the money, he paid the required taxes on it. Period, end of statement.
Man, the libs have sure done a wonderful job of nurturing class envy. Someone is successful these days, they are scored instead of admired. That’s just wrong.
I would say liberals in general don’t necessarily scorn people who are successful. They scorn people who are successful through fraudulent or dishonest means, and they scorn people who try to use their power and influence to further advance oppressive/unfair causes and policies.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Pretend you are part of a tribe living in the jungle. You need a bridge. The chief taxes everyone to a day of labor to get it built. Do you think that young, powerful men should have to lift as much as old, weak women?
[/QUOTE]
In those kinds of societies, do you think that the powerful young men are going to eat better and have higher status (and higher status items) than the old, weak women (or men)?
No…why SHOULD everyone ‘suffer’ the same? You require the strong men to do their part and the old women to do their part. They give unequally…but then they take unequally as well. I guarantee you that at the end of the day the strong men will get the lions share of the food and goodies, and the old women will get what’s left over. Is that what you REALLY want to use to demonstrate your point here?
(BTW, just FTR I’m not in favor of a true flat tax system…I’m more for a progressive system without all the loopholes but also without all of the social engineering aspects added in).
But you like the berries and nuts that the women harvest while you’re hunting. And the bridge would allow them to get to the harvest area in less than half the time, meaning more nuts for everyone. Also, men would be using the bridge to bring game in from the hunting areas. Maybe we don’t need the bridge to survive, but as a society, we will be much advanced for having it.
So because you are a strong man, you should work less to further the society you live in? Everyone knows that you are mighty, young Hagar, but that is why society needs your strong arms. All we are asking is that you work as hard as your grandmother over there.
Unless there are antelopes in that tree, we’re still gonna need the bridge.
First, please define “flat”. You mean in percentage, I take it, but you could be talking about dollars.
Second, why is it always a tribe in jungle? Why can’t it be, like, Ann Arbor or somewhere?
Third, I’m not saying we should have a flat tax. I’m saying a flat tax would be fair. But what is fair is not always right- if you need to toss some weight from your lifeboat before it sinks, the right thing to do is push the fat kid in. The fair thing is to drown together.
The right thing to do is to tax the rich more than everyone else, and when they end up paying $6 million, thank them for it instead of declaring them immoral. The right thing is to be the opposite of Der Trihs and recognize that the rich are the only people that actually keep this government and economy functioning, not vilify them for having performed in a way that the poor have not and could not. While we can’t possibly have a system that takes equally from everyone, we should still remember who exactly it is that’s keeping the lights on. And it ain’t the poor.
Just to reiterate so there’s no confusion: What I think is fair and what I think is right are two different things.
To carry on the analogy, if you want to build a bridge, you should do it so everyone is equally tired. BUT at the end of the day, the weak women should look at the strong men and say “Boy, I’m tired too, but you sure did get that work done. You could’ve done it without me, but I couldn’t’ve done it without you. You did most of the work, so…thanks for that.”
They should NOT go into the town square and say “Those strong men are morally unfit to be Chief! They only did twenty times the work I did, not twenty-five!”
Of course. That’s the point, isn’t it? No one is saying that the rich should be taxed so much that them become middle classed. They should be taxed at a higher percentage, because the same percentage would mean their contribution is trivial for them.
Because they’re part of a society. Look, if you imagine that Romney could have made his money without the society he lives in you’re wrong. Put Romney in Somalia and he’d be shitting worms and watching his wife die in childbirth. The society is the reason Romney has what he has. So expecting him to pay as much effort to support it as a lowly bus driver isn’t an extreme stance.
Since food and goodies symbolize money here, of course. You don’t think Romney has more food and goodies than you do? That’s the point.
Yes, because it makes sense.
I’d like the system to be very simplified myself. But I’d add in that capital gains should be taxed like income. No one looks at the taxes (unless they’re truly high) and says, “My capital gains will be taxed at 35%? Well I guess I won’t even bother to make any more money!”
Which means that no one is jealous, since you just got through admitting that jealous people want money for themselves, while we want money “to give it to other people.”
I don’t know why it’s so hard for financial conservatives to believe that there are people out there that are actually altruistic. Is it really so hard to understand that, if I were rich, and everyone else around me were poor, I would be horribly unhappy? That the only joy riches would give me would be the ability to give to those in actual need. To actually be able to make the world a better place?
Do I get a thank-you for paying taxes on my income, or is that kind of groveling reserved only for the rich?
Here’s the problem: the rich aren’t the only people to thank when things work. You got closer to pointing that out in your later post, but it’s not present here. The rest of society does not exist or function because of the generosity of the wealthy, and this sort of hagiography does no good for anyone. It’s rather naive, the same as equal-opportunity bashing of the wealthy. Not only that, but the economy isn’t in great shape - not because of all rich people, but some of them deserve a significant amount of the credit - and the government isn’t doing so great either, partly but not entirely because of the influence of wealthy people who can distort the system to their advantage in a way that is almost impossible for people who aren’t rich. Or is that not appropriately deferential - or even something like the dreaded class warfare?
I don’t see where you fail to see the jealousy. Liberals want to take from the rich and give to themselves, i.e. the poor. Just because it’s collective doesn’t mean it’s not jealousy.
Second, what if you, the rich guy, decided to pay the tax bill for 100 poor people so they wouldn’t have to pay anything, and on top of that, you gave away 10% of your income just to be a nice guy, and yet those same poor people that you just carried on your back still called you immoral? How would that feel? Does it feel like fairness to you?
Actually I can walk you thru how you came to that conclusion.
[ul][li]Mitt Romney used tax deductions.[/li][li]Mitt Romney is a Republican.[/li][li]Ergo, tax deductions are morally wrong.[/ul][/li]
The OP was arguing something slightly different -
[ul][li]Romney used tax deductions to reduce his tax rate[/li][li]Any action by a rich person to reduce his tax rate instead of increasing it is morally repellent[/li][li]Romney is rich[/li][li]Ergo, tax deductions are morally repellent.[/ul][/li]
The Obama example was pointing out the unexpressed part of the above syllogism, which is that this only applies to Republicans. That’s where you came in.
Glad to clear it up. Don’t be afraid to ask for help with complex things like logic and morality. Maybe it will help.
You do realize that in this analogy Romney is NOT equally tired, the old women are half dead from their exertion, and he’s still got enough juice left in his tank to run a goddamn marathon. They’re supposed to kiss his fucking feet and hope he doesn’t get too many blisters?
The government is not taking your money by force. They are just not allowing you to be a free-loader. If you want to go live on a desert island and renounce your U.S. citizenship, then we won’t stop you. (In fact, we may hold a party.)
This idea that taxes are your money taken from you by force is so immature. Part of the problem is that people like you and Romney have this sense of entitlement. You don’t realize that your wealth has come as much through the assistance of others than through your own genius.
