I should have put a smilie after that, I think.
I get what you’re saying, but people demand programs/wars/whatever that they can’t/don’t want to pay for all the time. Part of the problem we have, IMO, is that there is a perception that there is an endless pool of money, but no one really wants to pay into the pool.
Really? The monthly spending in Iraq dwarfs spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, TANF, and other federal social programs? I’d like a cite on that. If you’d like to make it more accurate, you can also include state spending on these programs.
To make it easier for you, you don’t need to include education, although I’d certainly consider that a “social program.”
Well, I hope Oprah’s one of them.
I don’t count those as social;programs – especially not social security. Those are just basic state necessities.
How do you justify the spending in Iraq and who should have to pay for it?
Yeah, I guess if you don’t define any social programs as, you know, social programs, you can get away with making completely unsupportable claims.
Please point to a thread where I have ever justified spending in Iraq.
Fine, but you are trying to argue that those benefited from it shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Where?
To be fair, SS isn’t a social expense nor a state necessity. It’s more of a backwards tax on the upper middle class.
When I visit my daughter and take her out to dinner, I pay everything, since if we split the tab her half would be a huge chunk of her income, while paying for everything is a tiny bit of mine. And yes, we’re related, but I’d do it for anyone with less money, and we’re in all together in this country anyhow.
If the rich think they are paying too much in taxes, the CEOs can tell their compensation committees that they want less, in salary and bonuses, and their tax rate would go right down.
Especially if their company’s stock is sinking out of sight.
Everywhere you complain about the rich having to pay their fair share of taxes.
If the poor could afford to pay a lot more they wouldn’t need the benefits and they wouldn’t be poor. :rolleyes: You are aware that a dollar is worth less to a millionaire than it is to a person who has only ten bucks to his name, right?
(BTW, Bill Gates’ father also came out against the Bush tax cuts - that Commie.)
I was unaware that “the rich” are benefitting from the war in Iraq. Please show me that the top 1% of taxpayers, who pay 35% of the taxes, are benefitting from the war in Iraq.
And your story proves what? You feel like being generous to your daugher. Good for you. You’re a good parent. So should you then force me to do the same to people when I dine out?
Of course it is. So? Yes, the rich person has more dollars. Why does that mean he has less of a right to those dollars than a poor person has to his dollars? Does your right to your money decrease as you have more of it?
The notion that people should be forced to pay more merely because they can has nothing to do with “fairness.” It is simply those who don’t have as much trying to take from those who do have as much. I freely admit that those with more have an ethical obligation to help the less fortunate. However, no one has the right to use force against someone to take it.
I’m not saying that every rich person is benefiting from the occuption of Iraq, but the only people who are benefiting are rich.
Somebody has to pay that bill. How do you propose to pay it with out removing those tax give aways for the super rich?
Let them eat cake.
It means he has more responsibility to the country which allows him to possess that money.
It has to do with civic and social responsibility. Rich people couldn’t be rich without the government.
But conservatives don’t actually believe this. They DO think the government has a right to collect taxes. The disagreements lie only in how it should be spent.
I’d have a hard time saying that anyone except a handful of defense contractors are benefitting.
How about reducing spending? Or just slowing the growth of spending and letting the natural increase in tax revenue catch up with the spending rate.
Why? It’s not like the rich person gets anything special. The rich and the poor live under the same laws. The rich person earned his money. Unless he’s a government contractor, he did not do so because of any special government program.
And the poor would be dead without the government. So I’d think the poor owe a lot more to the government than the rich.
You’ll get no argument from me that the Republicans in DC spend too much. But on the theoretical level, conservatives who recognize that taxes are a necessary evil are far different from those like you who want to use taxes to punish those you dislike or envy.
And without those laws, the rich person wouldn’t have shit.
I would beg to differ with this. Certainly not all rich people did anything to earn it (what did Paris Hilton do to earn her money, for example? Or GWB, for that matter?) and others are grossly overpaid or profit greatly beyond any real work. many of them profit on the backs of others’ labors, not their own.
He did so under the protection of state laws and services.
Without a government, distinctions of “rich” and “poor” would be meaningless. There wouldn’t be any protection for wealth. There wouldn’t even be printed currency. The main purpose of the law is to keep the poor from murdering the rich. Take away the government tomorrow, and I’d bet on today’s “poor” people to kick the living shit out of the rich people.
I don’t know where you’re getting that I think taxes are a “punisjhment.” I think they’re a responsibility.