The rich SHOULD pay a higher tax rate!!

Read that again. As I said, this is a thread to support progressive taxation.


PS. Higher is a relational descriptor, in this instance the relation is between the rich and everyone else. So they should pay higher taxes than everyone else!! NOT the relation between their current tax rate, and any future tax rate!! Do you understand now?

 

Not a single word in this mess of a post addresses anything I said in my post. It is like a laundry list of right wing talking points used whenever this topic comes up!! You are free to say their is a lot wrong with my post, but when you do, you then need to address those problems specifically and in depth!! A broad rant against liberals, DOES NOT accomplish that!!!

 

No it doesn't. We manipulate oil prices(or help to), but it isn't to make oil cheaper. Ever since the price of oil collapsed a few decades ago, we have worked with OPEC and the major oil companies to ensure stability in the price of oil, which means controlling production. We DO NOT work to keep price low to help out the average American!!

 

I think YOU should pay a higher tax rate.

It never fails to amaze me how liberals always want everyone else except themselves to pay more.

 

Yes--he IS proud of it and rightly so. He hasn't taken a salary since he's been in politics. As Governor he did not take a salary; let the state keep it.
You don't take a salary and most everything else is in investments, you won't pay a lot in taxes. Doesnt mean that he hasn't paid through the nose in taxes throughout his private career however. Btw, Warren Buffet takes no salary either and pays little in taxes. But Libs are ok with that one since he's Obama's sidekick!

 

The rich wouldn't receive special benefits if we followed the constitution and got rid of crony capitalism. Big government like you is why we have this super elite rich. You are exactly right, the rich prosper from big government... how is making it bigger going to help anything?! They shouldn't pay any higher percentage than anyone else, because they are not any more responsible for the mistakes our government makes EVERY DAY with money than I am.

 

NO, THEY DO NOT.

What they do is take better advantage of what the Government provides for everyone. That they take better advantage is a product of their own construct.

The Constitution protects the pursuit of happiness, and says nothing about punishing additionally those who have succeeded most in that pursuit.

Taxes are paid to continue Government's role in protecting equal opportunity. That there are those who simply excel with that opportunity is not a legitimate argument to punish them additionally. That, in fact, runs counter to the purpose of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit.

That has nothing to do with anything. What the Government provides is protection of inalienable rights which allow individuals to succeed to their heart's content, and nothing whatever in the Constitution defends the notion that so doing should result in additional penalty.

And they should pay the same percentage that anyone with property pays. Because they own more, they will - automatically - pay more.

Um...they do. My home is nearly certainly worth quite a lot more than yours, and - as such - I pay quite a lot more in property taxes. What's hard to understand about that?

Now you're coming around. You don't have a point.

Non sequitur. That is available to everyone.

They already do. In case you haven't noticed, Window's market share continues to drop.

Why should Gates have provided others the ability to compete with him using his own ideas?

So? There is still plenty of choice, but Windows is a superior product, and should have been rewarded for its superiority.

This is your own legitimate point so far. This is cronyism, and should absolutely not be allowed.

Including small ones. If Government didn't tax and regulate unwisely, these subsidies would be far less frequent and necessary. I am generally against subsidization.

No bid contracts are generally engaged for a reason, and the reason is usually qualification based. If it isn't, they should not be allowed to do so.

You are misusing the term 'imperialist'. The US is not imperialistic. If we were, we would own nearly 50% of the globe.

Perhaps. The other side of the coin is the argument that these frequent foreign incursions keep antagonistic powers off balance, and unable to focus themselves into a dire threat to our safety.

This is a side trip. Oil companies pay billions in taxes, and Oil companies have been lobbying - with no success - for increased rights to drill and refine domestically.

Their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

This side trip doesn't establish any "unfairness" regardless. Our foreign policy causes mistakes, of that there is no doubt. But there are myriad reasons for engaging overseas - and ensuring the stability of oil prices is just one legitimate reason.

Repeat. The 'wealthy' have simply succeeded more in their equality of opportunity, and a flat rate would ensure that they pay more regardless.

Invalid. No argument which calls upon "fairness" is valid. You cannot provide a definition of 'fair with which everyone will agree.

Moreover, the wealthy will NEVER pay "an equal amount". They always pay more.

And the wealthy person paid a lot more for the Ferrari. Your point is invalid.

Your argument fails. 15% of a million is $150,000. 15% of $30,000 is $4,500.

The wealthy already pay many many times more.

 

Ahh I understand what you were saying now. However that still does not answer my question to you. How can you claim they are not paying enough to cover the benefits they get from the government if you do not have solid numbers?

If you can list how much in terms of dollars Bill Gates receives in benefits from the government and compare that to how much he pays in taxes, then you will have a place to start a debate.

Until then you cannot claim they need to pay more just because you think its right.

 

Numbers??

You expect them to come up with numbers?

Only evil wicked conservatives need numbers, the truth is the feeling in one's gut! The numbers mean nothing next to the liberal instinct for truth, justice and anyone's way but America's.

 

But they are more responsible because all those decisions are being made by rich people. It's not poor people that created these problems. It wasn't like the working class didn't show up to work. Rich guys created all of our economic problems. Poor people had nothing to do with it. Poor people are just expected to clean up the mess.

The decision-making in the government is done entirely by ... which? Poor people? Or rich people?

 

So your argument is that "I" should pay higher taxes because THOSE people also happen to be wealthy?

 

"the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending". How much more plain does this have to be? The more you tax them, the less they money they will inject into the economy by spending, it's that simple. Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats can't see the forest from the trees. If spending drops, unemployment goes up, not down. Let's take an example: A $10 item at Wal Mart @ California's current sales tax of 8.75% = $.87 cents in sales tax for the state. A new BMW for $100,000 @ 8.75% = $8750 in sales tax not including the yearly recurring car tax.

60% of the spending is done by the very people that Obama wants to tax more. Just how ignorant is that?

 

They most definitely ARE responsible for those mistakes!! They exert an enormous amount of control over government, and manipulate the process in their favor to ensure laws are passed that are favorable to their interests!!


PS. So far people have only been able to contradict my post with non-sequitur, red-herrings, and inaccuracies. Now you do it with straw men!! Who said anything about making government bigger? Only you did, because it is like the right wing partisan tourrettes!! THere is a set list of talking points, and all responses must include some of those talking points, even when they are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand!! Class Warfare!! Big government!! Socialism!! Punishing success!!

 

You ignore the contributions of "rich" people because it challenges your bias and is convenient to your arguement.

The govt does not enforce patents, it is up to the patent owner to detect a violation and then bring the case to court. The govt will not do the detection and enforcement for you.

That is a very expensive process. The resources of the litigants are the major factor, a deep pockets corp like Microsoft can afford to go to court for years, a small business cannot afford it. It also means a small company cannot defend their patents against infringment by a large company.

 

The problem with leftists is the spending the rich do doesn't benefit them directly by receiving a Government check or other form of transfer payment.

There is a certain type of "spending" that is legitimate to a leftist and the rest are immoral for various stupid ideological reasons that defy logic.

 

There's a much better reason, one that is easily stated: marginal disutility of income.

 

Easily stated, but nearly no one understands what you're talking about, so you'd better be more clear.

 

I strive to encourage other to do some research. The whole, you can lead a horse to water thing....

 

Good luck with that. My guess is your comment on marginal disutility of income ends with this post.

 

Thanks, I'll need it. I realize my objective is futile.

 

what about the person who doesn't benefit from copyright or patent protection, received no bailout, gets no subsidy, does not benefit from no bid contracts, and is not an oil company. What should his tax rate be ?

 

what does utility have to do with liberty ?

 

Everything, so long as liberty has something to do with justice.

 

In response to the OP, I am going to reference to Keynes and basic economic theory on fiscal policy. As of right now, the nation is likely suffering from a minor recessionary gap, despite the belief that we are out of a recession. To close a recessionary gap, government should utilize three policies. These are tax cuts, spending increases, and transfer increases. Ergo, the argument that government should raise taxes is actually contrary to an inherently left-wing economic theory.

In addition, depending on how much you raise taxes, its short-run effect under the current spending path would be similar to an automatic stabilizer. This means that any benefits that government spending is having on economic growth could be wiped out completely.

Therefore, my last statement to the OP is that you raise taxes during an expansion, not an economic downturn or anemic economic recovery.

 

utility has everything to do with liberty so long as liberty has something to do with justice ?

did you make that up yourself, or did you have help?