No I shouldn’t. And I won’t. So there. a progressive tax has pros and cons, just like a flat tax and the fair tax do. They are all worthy of consideration. And I think that the progressive strain is the most immoral.
And I think it’s the most moral. Because the idea of a tax should be to reduce the amount of harm. A flat tax harms the poor more, and there are more of them, so in causes much more misery.
A progressive tax should aim to hurt the middle class and the rich alike. 10% of your income when you’re making 30k can cripple your chances of leading a productive life.
At 300k it’s trivial. The spread of the tax burden should hurt equally across the brackets. The specific points are elements for debate, but there is no way a flat tax would work at all, except for making the rich, much, much richer. And Bush II has taught us that this is a fool’s errand.
Yeah, sorry, I misinterpreted.
I believe I can answer this:
It’s been tried ELSEWHERE. Places like Europe and Russia. Just because it failed over there, doesn’t mean it will fail here. The US is different. The same way UHC can work in other countries but NOT in the US. Socialism can fail in other countries but work in the US. Seems logically sound to me.
I think people raise it because you are using a very odd definition of “rich.” I think maybe 100 people in the whole US qualify as “rich” by your apparent definition (i.e., they inherited vast wealth and then never worked a day in their life).
Out here in the real world, the VAST majority of millionaires didn’t inherit anything–they got it by working hard and investing.
About the only reasonable answer I can offer you is, that some things are too big for one individual to tackle no matter what personal resources he has. A Bill Gates sort of person can do great things, bet he is still only one person. Carnegie created the Carnegie Foundation. During the Great Depression, Al Capone was very generous, opening soup kitchens etc, and (ignoring how he made his money) people were thankful for that food. There are probably many more examples of men with wealth and power doing these things, but each was only one man. One man can only do, and finance so many things.
Another fine example of teabagger classiness:
Oh yeah, and people are saying WE (Dopers) don’t kow how to act
Proving once and for all that the tea-baggers are nothing more than racist troglodytes. Personally I think every single person holding a sign with a Browning on it should have been arrested and charged under Homeland Security violations and shipped off to Gitmo. Let the fuckers rot.
Well, that was easy. Thank you.
But since this is the pit, “Look asshat, how dare you rile me up and then come back with your…your…reasonableness—and polite manner to boot!” 
You are right here, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are only a few individuals who can give so substantially, but that doesn’t mean that you and I can’t make a donation to a school sports team, or get a few of our friends together and sponsor a 5, 10, or 20 thousand dollar scholarship to a low-income school. Or help out at the old folks home, with either time or a donation.
No, no, no, we must take the money of those nasty rich people and use that for good.
You know, those slow and stupid rich that are just going to sit there and let their money be taken.
How exactly is this going to help the uninsurable?
I have no friggin idea. There was a tangent and then a tangent on the tangent. I had commented on someone’s use of noblesse oblige and we meandered from there.
In my personal life, I do (or at least I try to) adhere to Christ’s teachings, as promulgated by the Catholic Church, which is of course headed always by Christ’s Vicar on Earth, as it has been since Peter took the job at Jesus’ command.
This is why, for example, I spend a fair amount of time every month supporting a homeless shelter, doing everything from cooking and serving food to computer and carpentry work, as needed. This is why a fair amount of money every month goes to charity from the Bricker household.
But these are all personal actions, which is what I contend is necessary to adhere to Christ’s teachings. Christ teaches us to help the helpless, not to force others to do so. I believe people gain grace when they step up,personally, and do something to help. They gain no grace where their “help” is procured involuntarily by taxation and public policy.
So those are my relevant religious beliefs.
Now, in what way am I acting contrary to them?
As an American, I believe our public policy should not be informed by ourreligious convictions. I strongly oppose Catholic marriages for same-sex couples, but I strongly favor civil marriages for same-sex couples… because religion should not guide public policy.
You cannot tell me my faith requires I support UHC, because it does not. You cannot claim that by opposing UHC I am acting contrary to my faith, because I am not.
And I find it highly… um… ;et’s say “manipulative,” to be polite… for you to point to Christian ideals only when they happen to coincide with your plans, and vigorously reject the very idea when they don’t.
Although you’d think I would just shrug off nonsense like that post, in fact it means a great deal to me to have you post what you did. Thanks.
You’ll notice that while a couple of folks did sort of endorse the thought, the majority of reactions to it were negative.
And thanks again to everyone who stepped up. As I hinted above, although I’m generally pretty thick-skinned, it does mean something to me when this kind of crap is actively rejected.
Bricker, a serious question.
Do you think that charity alone can fix the current crisis of the uninsured and uninsurable sick? And if not, what do you suggest we do?
…
Imagine that I offer you a piece of delicious pie. Because you’re hungry, you enjoy this delicious slice, in fact you love it so much you ask for seconds. But the second slice isn’t quite so delicious and valuable to you as the first, and the third is even less so because your hunger has been satisfied.
It works the same with money. Economists call it diminishing marginal returns. With each additional unit of money earned after basic needs are met, the increase in happiness to the income earner diminishes until eventually it levels off. Studies on the relationship between income and happiness show that the correlation levels off after $90,000 a year.
Keeping that in mind, a progressive taxation system is remarkably fair. Let’s pretend we’ve changed our current system to a flat tax of 36% (which is about the amount that would be needed to pay for all current federal, state, and local government services) it would seriously harm the poor. As far as the rich goes, that additional money they gain from making things “fair” isn’t likely to make them any happier than they already are. As an underemployed college student struggling to get by, I can assure you that it would be a major kick to my balls to convert to what you consider a “fair” method of taxation.