Is it Envious or from Jealousy to ask the Rich to pay more taxes?

I'm glad you noted your dodge as well! Your post contained opinion, with absolutely nothing to substantiate it. In it, you make bold accusations, but you do not offer anything to support your position. I am not going to waste my time trying to refute your opinion.

THE FOLLOWING SIR, IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN OPINION:

In our current society hard working people are forced to help those who are either incapable of helping themselves, or simply choose not to (I do not know you, so I can not surmise whether it is the former or the later in your specific case), but at least here at politicalforum.com we get a reprieve, as we are not forced to work for those who do not!

I made a statement (I'd like to believe it was somewhat amusing, but I can not say with certainty that it was) without offering any evidence to back it up, much like your previous posts. Now, statements very well MAY be true, but in a debate, it is generally considered folly to make statements without any references at all.

I am choosing not to do all the work for you sir. Substantiate your position and I'll do my best to refute it, but I will not accept what you say as the truth simply because you say it is.

 

Why shouldn't people who work for or own corporations not get the same benefits as those who work for unions. Your saying only Unions should be permitted to own politicians.

 

The employees should own the corporations. Equal shares with different salaries. The shares cannot be sold or inherited. Until then, employees should screw their corporate owners as much as they can. Employees have no stake in the game, except in the extreme circumstance of causing the corporation to go bankrupt and losing their jobs. Capitalism creates collectives owned by Wall Street commisars. That can't be refuted, except by the brain-dead pseudo-answer that Capitalists can't possibly act like Communists.

This answers your question because Capitalists should be given no rights at all. We granted them rights on the honor system, but honor doesn't make a profit. So they ignored that. Another unprofitable term is "my fellow Americans."

 

There are several reasons the rich should pay a higher level of taxes (not that they actually do in reality - especially the super-rich).

1. The way our nation and society is set up has allowed them to have the enviroment in which to earn those riches and therefore they owe more to that nation and society then the rest of us do. If they were living in the old USSR they would not have had the same life experience, for instance.

2. The rich and super-rich have a higher level of disposable income. In other words, after they pay for the necessities of life (even of the same things in a higher quality) they have more money left (as a percentage of income) that they can spend or invest. This means they can better afford to pay taxes than the rest of us can.

3. The rich and super-rich have a disproportionate voice in how things get done in this country. Surely their level of taxes should be equivalent to their level of influence?

4. An expanding gap between rich and poor (in percentage terms adjusted for inflation rather than in nominal terms, of course) is unhealthy for the longterm success of the nation. In that regard, the slow erosion of the middle class is not a healthy indicator of the political health of our democracy.

 

Excellent post. I don't readily agree with it, but it makes fair, thought provoking points.

1) This point is not incorrect, but it is not this simple. To say that because our society has offered an environment conducive to success and therefore those who succeed owe more is fundamentally flawed. That environment, generally speaking, is there for everyone, but not everyone uses it. Those that do generally work very hard to achieve success, and many times, particularly in small business, take great risks. Wealth is not generally obtained easily, because if it were easy to be wealthy, everyone would be wealthy. Most of the time, wealth is earned through hard work, discipline, intelligence. Is this ALWAYS the case, no, but it is more often than not. People talk as though doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, and CEO's are part of a privileged group who were handed their success on a silver platter, and this is simply not the case in the majority of times. Any one of those professions requires a lot of hard work to achieve any degree of success. So while yes, I agree that the United States of America is a wonderful country filled with wonderful opportunities, I do not agree that those who use those opportunities be taxed more because they do.

2) Again, not incorrect, but extremely simplistic. A doctor goes to medical school for eight years, and works very hard, sacrificing much to earn his status as a medical doctor. He finds a practice, and generally, after a few more years, he starts to earn a substantial income. So yes, he has a higher disposable income, but that doesn't mean he should, BY DEFAULT, pay more taxes, nor does he "owe more" to you or anyone else. He worked hard to achieve his success, and it is "unfair" to make him pay any more to live in this country then you or I do. A childhood friend of mine is a surgeon. He went to Yale and joined the Air Force so he could help pay for his education. To imply that because he is now, only at forty four, making a very good living that he "owes" anything to anyone is, in my opinion, extremely unfair.

3) You are speaking in absolutes. Not all rich people have power and influence. This point, in my opinion, is to much of general statement.

4) The gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country is greater than it is in any other country in the world, true. However, overall, the poor of this country (United States) have a better standard of living than the majority of the poor in the rest of the world. This Forbes article is very interesting: Forbes

In closing, I do not subscribe to the notion that anyone OWES me anything, nor do I believe that I am ENTITLED to many things. I personally believe that the United States is in a state of decline because the hard work and determination of its past citizens has spoiled and given an greatly exaggerated sense of entitlement to us now.

 

Well stated...

 

I'm sorry, how are you being "forced" to do this? Is someone putting a gun to your head?

Nobody forces me to do this.

 

Same benefits? You mean private audience with lawmakers in their French villas? Laws that specifically benefit them and them only?

Certainly you aren't naïve enough to believe corporations lobby for those people that work for them.


As far as unions... no unions lobby for me. Where's MY representation?

 

True...but no poor or middle class people have that same influence, and there are no poor or middle class people in our senate or house.

 

When I choose to help someone, it is charity. When the government uses my tax dollars, which I am obligated to pay, and uses that money in a way that helps individuals instead of society as a whole, I am being forced.

 

I do not have the evidence to refute this at the moment, but again, using an absolute, "there are NO poor or middle class people in the senate or house" is not the best way to debate.

Also, poor people are not destined to be poor. Many poor people work hard and become wealthy. I earn a six figure income and I received no help from anyone, including my family. Though I'd love to think I'm "exceptional", I'm really not. I have no degree, I'm simply a civil servant who works hard. Yet, because I earn a six figure salary, I'm taxed more than most Americans, but I really don't get anything that you do not. My friend the surgeon grew up in the same neighborhood I did, and makes more than I do because he worked exceptionally hard, went to Yale, which he paid for through savings and joining the Air Force, and then went to medical school. And he is taxed at an even higher rate than me. How is that fair? Why, because he busted his ass all his adult life and makes a lot of money, is he now considered "privileged" and that he somehow "owes society" anything?

I apologize beforehand for what I am about to say, I genuinely do not mean to be insulting, but when people argue about what is "fair", it reminds me of my eleven year old complaining that he was in school all day, and now he has to do homework, and it is just so "unfair". It irritates me to no end! Who said life is fair?

Human beings are entitled to few things in life. Money, mansions, power, and influence are NOT among these few entitlements. And simply because other people have them does not give you the right to have them as well, nor does it give you the right to TAKE THEM from those who legally obtained them.

 

I also earn 6 figure Mr. assumption. And no, the poor aren't destined to be poor but the rich most certainly stack the odds against them. Look at how many comfortably middle class people have been put in the poor house by wall street manipulations. a six figure salary is not a big deal these days when the wealthy measure their accounts in the billions. And it ain't going to win you a seat in the senate. Nor is if going to win you any influence nor allow you a say in how your tax dollars are spent.

So...you're one of these government folks that take my tax dollars and then order me around are ya? Grrrr.....

The entire thing centers around greed and selfishness. Pure, unadulterated greed and selfishness. You want to live in this society but you do not want to contribute to it. You (and apparently especially you who suck off the taxayers teat), want someone else to foot the bill. That makes you no different than that layabout fraud on disability.

 

LOL. Yes, as a police officer, I sit on my ass all day and suck off the taxpayers teat! How did you know? Before you start with the personal attacks, try to be sure you know all the facts. Unless, that is, you are content with looking like a jackass.

 

You make six figures as a police officer? That's' really sucking on the taxpayers teat... Taking their money by force then ordering them around.

I'd call that a bully.

I hope you mean well, but only about 50% of law officers really mean well, the rest are just bullies with a badge (and FTR..I'm a very law abiding citizen so there is no history behind this)

Soooooo you take money from me to do a job I never asked you to do then act like I should be grateful?


If you really cared about society you'd be arresting the politicians you suck up to instead of protecting the damned crooks.

 

I'll never ask for your gratitude Sir. I am compensated fairly for what I do, and I chose to do it. Further, as I've been trying to explain all along, I don't believe I'm entitled to many things, least of all being your gratitude. However, I will say this: if you think you don't need me and my fellow officers, then I think you are a fool. If you are not grateful to the thirty seven police officers from my department who died on September 11, 2001, then I no longer think you are a fool, I'm fairly certain you are a fool.

 

What good did they do? The buildings still fell. And how are they any more important than the others who died? Sorry your fellow employees died. Seriously, that's tragic. But so did 3500 other people. Each just as important.

 

What good did they do? They died trying to save people, and thousands of people were saved that day. Saved by police officers, firefighters, and other brave people who risked their lives to help others. A risk they took, and lost.

How are they more important than the others who died? They are not. No life is "more important" than any other life. I never suggested otherwise. What distinguishes the thirty seven police officers from most of the other people who died is the fact that most of the others who died had no choice but to die. Every single one of the thirty seven police officers who died did not have to die. They could have not responded. They could have simply said, "I am not going in there." While thousands of other people fled, they went in. They went in to try and save other people, and they died trying to do so.

If you can not respect that or acknowledge their sacrifice for what it was, well, I don't really know what else to say to you. In fact, I have nothing else to say to you Sir, other than you proved me right. You are, indeed, a fool. And an ungrateful one at that.

 

Upon further contemplation, I do have one more thing to say to you: F YOU!



Memorials


On September 11, 2001, 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department made the ultimate sacrifice during the rescue of tens of thousands of people trapped in the doomed buildings that comprised the World Trade Center complex, which was owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Contrary to popular belief, few Port Authority officers were located in the complex when the attacks occurred, but instead responded from as far away as Hicksville, Long Island, and Newark, New Jersey. The Port Authority's elite Police Emergency Service Unit and its PATH (Port Authority Trans Hudson rail system) Police Command both were headquartered just minutes away, across the Hudson River in Jersey City, New Jersey, and, consequently, suffered the greatest losses of any single police units. Hundreds of members of the PAPD responded that morning, from all Port Authority Police commands located throughout the metropolitan region, and almost every command suffered at least one loss. The department suffered losses from almost every police rank, including the Director of Public Safety/Superintendent of Police. Remarkably, the department's responding detective units were spared any losses that fateful day.

 

I will once again point out an unfortunate but true fact. In the past 35 years, the top 0.5% have become substantially wealthier in terms of real wealth. Real wealth is a measure of your net assets less your net liabilities, all adjusted for inflation if you are comparing particular years.

Anyway, this wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that the next 16.5% were nowhere near as successful but were still quite a bit better off. This too wouldn't be a problem except that (in aggregate, or in other words considered altogether) the remaining 83% of us are very little better off than we were three and a half decades ago. This I do consider a problem, because the percentage/rate of change in real wealth is grossly disproportionate.

Let me give a numerical example. Let's say that that someone in the top 0.5% has gone from 2 million in 1978 dollars to 5.5 million in 1978 dollars in 2013 (including debts, mortgages, etcetera). This is a growth of 275%. Then you have someone in the next 16.5% who has gone from 200,000 in 1978 dollars to 350,000 in 1978 dollars in 2013. This is a growth in real wealth of 75%. Finally, you have Joe average who went from 20,000 in 1978 dollars to 22,500 in 1978 dollars in 2013. This is a growth in real wealth of 12.5%.

So who benefitted from the comparatively recent economic past in relative terms? The 83% of us is actually a lot more complicated, with the financial health of the poor flucuating quite a bit and the lower middle class and middle middle class tending to get the shortest end of the stick. If you don't let yourself get distracted by that sort of detail, the answer is that in the real world the super rich in the USA have got virtually a free ride in the past 3 and a half decades compared to the rest of us. Why on earth should anyone defend them or feel sorry for them?

 

If you are a civil servant you make your money by taking it, usually from people who wouldn't buy the services otherwise. You definitely get more from government then the rest, you get your job from it. Bad analogy in my book. The rest of the points were fair, but what can I tell you, bad analogy.

 

Actually, I'm a police officer, so I provide a necessary service. Additionally, I do not work for a municipality, so I don't actually work for the government. So, I still maintain I get nothing more from the government than the average citizen. Thank you though for acknowledging my points were fair (and I'm being genuine, not sarcastic when I say that )

 

I defend them because many people, both here and in the real world, attack them with such vitriol, making unsubstantiated claims of abuse, for no other apparent reason than they are wealthy. Being wealthy does not, in and of itself, make someone a bad person.

 

Nevermind, my bad. Can't replace those with private sector, thank you for your service. I am an ass.

 

You are too kind Sir! Stop it, you are not an ass. Simple mistake, no offense taken.

 

Isn't that part of their job? Isn't that exactly what they are paid for? Do they not know the risks when they take these jobs? When I do my job, do I ask for a pat on the back when I do it instead of "running away"?

I wasn't there ..why should I be grateful? I would have done the same as those officers. In fact I have no doubt there were "civilians" there looking to save others just as the officers were. Only difference is I wouldn't demand hero status for it and tell people they should be grateful I was there. And frankly, if those officers had known the buildings were about to collapse, they probably would have stayed away. I'll give them a pat on the back and condolences for their family, but I don't "hero worship" Too many people demand to be called hero's who simply aren't.

I'm seriously not trying to disrespect you Mr. Gnome, but from my POV, you don't work for me, you work for the politicians. You are not defenders of freedom, you are takers of freedom. If push comes to shove you will protect the politicians and oppress the people. Because they are your bosses.

This may not be you, but I still consider you to be "them", as in the them vs. us. and I know the police feel the same way.

Have a nice day.