LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThat sucksOriginally Posted by brokem
I don't think so; at least, nobody told me so or warned me about my posts. However, I found my name was deleted from the member list and I could no longer post. I emailed the administrator a couple times, but no response. So I "re-enlisted", so to speak.
That sucks
Not that I'm aware of, but I will check it out. In the meantime, apologies.
Thanks! No apology necessary, probably just a software glitch somewhere.Not that I'm aware of, but I will check it out. In the meantime, apologies.
Since we live in a country where political power is bought with the dollar, they are one in the same.
God damn miss, that was an EXCELLENT post.
I noticed that the socialists totally ignored it though, because there is no way to argue against it, other than to ignore it...
This is utter non-sense. Political and Economic power are two seperate things. Just because political power in many cases can be bought through economic power does not mean they are "one in the same". It's like saying "you can pay for a murder with economic power, therefor economic power is murder".Since we live in a country where political power is bought with the dollar, they are one in the same.
So please don't BS me.
I apologize; I thought you could recognize the subtlety of what I was inferring. What I should have said is that economic power begets political power, and conversely political power begets economic power. Since they can be exchanged, they are equivalent, but not the same. But since they are equivalent, then a man with great economic leverage is able to exert his political will on the man that does not have economic means. This is the essence of the inequality of the exponentially increasing gap between the average American and the very richest.
The reason why the gap is increasing exponentially though is that economic and political power beget more economic in political power. Even though the total amount of wealth in the country is increasing, and the wealth of the average person is increasing, the proportion of the total wealth owned by the rich minority expands. If this process continues unbounded to its border case, the wealthy will earn nearly all of the total wealth in the nation. This will lead to them owning all of the political power in the nation, which is clearly an unbearable situation.
To make things worse, as the margin of production continues to improve, jobs that need little or no education will disappear, and the unspecialized worker will find himself unable to make a living because his job has been replaced by capital, owned by the rich.
If in the future you want me to actually respond, don't mock me. Of course there are plenty of arguments against it; if you simply spent the time to learn about the necessity of a progressive tax, then you would understand.God damn miss, that was an EXCELLENT post.
I noticed that the socialists totally ignored it though, because there is no way to argue against it, other than to ignore it...
The first point is that while the restaurant analogy is appealing, it is not how the tax system works. This "bait and switch" technique is effective in convincing many, it fails an in-depth analysis. The key difference is how the owner decides to reduce the bill to $80. The rate at which people are obliged to pay doesn't change, therefore the new bill for each individual is fair. This is where the analogy builds the straw man of the poor individual who doesn't have to pay anything in both cases. The argument clearly draws a line to the Bush tax cuts, and the outrage of democrats over how these cuts were implemented. The clear and obvious difference is that in the Bush tax cuts, the federal budget continues to expand (ie, the dinner bill actually increases) but the actual rates that the men pay change. The problem with this situation is that the overall tax burden now actually shifts down the curve, to men for whom money has a higher marginal utility. So what is unfair is that with the new tax cuts, money of higher marginal utility is being taken out of the public's hands.
Actually the tax curve that we have can hardly even be considered progressive at all when sales tax is taken into account. The current highest tax bracket is 35% for salaries of $321K+. This is not much higher than the rate of 25% for the average American's salary. This is especially not much to complain about when you consider that during WWII income tax at the highest rate reached 91%. Its clear that the president has no concept of economic accountablility when he decreases the tax burden of the rich, and then starts a war that the middle class must pay for.
Good arguement but, the sh*ts gonna hit the fan now.
Nothing you posted changes my stand for equal rights. I don't think Asians should pay more taxes than blacks, just as I do not think Kerrys should pay more for taxes than I do. What makes me mad is that they doesn't pay as much as I do. Equality is all that matters to me, and a "progressive" tax is not equal no matter how you slice it.
Yep, noticed that myself.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
You should be mad. I am no Heinz-Kerry, but I paid only 6% last year.
However, you stated earlier that the poor should pay no tax. That is a progressive tax system. Where do you draw the line when you define "poor"?
Heh, heh, trying to nudge me into that discussion, are you? OK, I'll bite."Originally Posted by M21Sniper
I noticed that the socialists totally ignored it though"
Yep, noticed that myself.
First off, a progressive tax isn't socialism. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and it is hard to label him a socialist.
Second, my income comes solely from investments, making me a pure capitalist. I believe the best system would be a competitive free-market meritocracy. A plutocracy is not a meritocracy, and a plutocracy is what you get when all the wealth is in just a few hands. A progressive tax counters the natural tendency for money to accumulate into a few very large piles. As an investor, I think a larger number of smaller piles generates more growth.
I am, that's why I want a fair tax system.
The current definition works for me right now. With changes to the tax code I would vary it by their area's cost of living.
No, it's welfare. If a person doesn't have enough to live, it would be wrong to take any.
Sure it is. It's forced wealth redistribution, as your post illustrates.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Poor is a relitive term, and as such has no definable limits.Where do you draw the line when you define "poor"?
A system of "No tax for the poor, tax for everyone else" is a two-tier income-based tax system: it is progressive. Welfare is not a tax, it is tax money distributed to the poor.
Your point is interesting. I never thought of Teddy Roosevelt as a socialist."Originally Posted by Broken1
First off, a progressive tax isn't socialism."
Sure it is. It's forced wealth redistribution, as your post illustrates.
All tax, unless it is evenly distributed back to the tax-payers (which it is not), is "forced wealth redistribution".
I like competitive free-market capitalism. It has two weaknesses, however.
First, competitive markets are not stable. Sooner or later, an isolated market will consolidate until only a monopoly or oliogarchy is left. In this case, competition is minimal and the market stagnates. Fortunately, monopolies tend to degenerate to the point where they are broken up, either by becoming so senile that a competitor can finally gain a foothold, or by government action. The problem is that the stagnation period can be quite long.
Second, money accumulates into fewer and fewer hands. This happens for basically the same reasons monopolies form: the big gorilla beats the little gorilla. Countries with extreme wealth concentration, like most of South and Central America, tend to stagnate economically. There is little class mobility, the political system is controlled by the wealthy class, and there is no incentive for those with the money to put it at risk. Active capitalism dies.
A progressive tax system helps prevent or slow down this wealth concentration. If you don't like progressive taxation, a high estate tax can accomplish the same thing.
The idea of progressivism is to give everyone an equal opportunity. The idea of socialism is to give everyone equal results. Big difference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: