Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arrogant Rich People: Taxation, Income Disparity, and the Shrinking Middle Class

wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
edited November 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Ok, so we got off on a big tangent in the healthcare thread thanks to a troll alt that essentially argued that poor, downtrodden rich people are going to be dying in the streets because of a tax increase to pay for healthcare and the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. This is retarded for many reasons, which I hope we'll discuss in this thread. Mainly I'd like to focus on taxation, the growing income gap between the classes, the shrinking middle class, and social responsibility.

Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.

Anyway, discuss.

wwtMask on
When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
«13456741

Posts

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elec mentioned that when rich business owners participate in certain programs which cos them money, they actually get tax reductions (or something to that effect). Rich people aren't assholes when they put money back into circulation. But these assholes like Rush Limbaugh who make millions, and then donate $100,000 a year to charity and pretend they've done more than their share and shouldn't pay high taxes, can eat a dick.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    ...

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Some rich people are assholes. They bitch about people getting government handouts (welfare, Medicaid, etc), but want a fucking tax cut, which is a goddamned handout. They hate welfare unless they, themselves, benefit, thus it's great in their minds to give handouts to corporations. They are getting the best damn deal in the world being rich in this nation, and they still complain. It's infuriating.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Rich Germans lobby for higher taxes.
    The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality.

    Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach.

    "The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice," they say in the petition.

    Those who had "made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment" should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.

    This is doing it right.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Some rich people are assholes. They bitch about people getting government handouts (welfare, Medicaid, etc), but want a fucking tax cut, which is a goddamned handout. They hate welfare unless they, themselves, benefit, thus it's great in their minds to give handouts to corporations. They are getting the best damn deal in the world being rich in this nation, and they still complain. It's infuriating.

    Yeah I hate the whole false dichotomy that they've made. From a budget standpoint tax cuts vs increased spending yields the same end result: Less money

    why is one ok and the other the devil's work inself?

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Some rich people are assholes.

    This is a point I want to sort of give a personal disclaimer; I have a couple of friends who are rather well off (certainly not millionaires) but they do what they can and aren't money-hoarding shits. Plus they're good people in other respects.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Not all rich people are bad, and even some good sometimes come of the bad (hello Andrew Carnegie). Bono, Michael Jackson, the Gates', etc. are doing awesome things with their money. It's the other fucks like Limbaugh and all the assholes on the business channels that deify greed and preach that being rich entitles you to special treatment that I hate.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Some rich people are assholes.

    This is a point I want to sort of give a personal disclaimer; I have a couple of friends who are rather well off (certainly not millionaires) but they do what they can and aren't money-hoarding shits. Plus they're good people in other respects.

    my counter point is my best friend's dad, who is one of the most powerful CPA's in the STATE, is a VERY nice man...except he HATES HATES HATES taxes

    and as a CPA he is verrrrryyyy good at not paying them

    the dude has a house that HAS A THEATER IN IT and I have had to leave his house when stuff like this comes up because he devolves from nice, selfless man (i mean, he has spent so much money on me it is silly. I am not even his son and he has given me money to go out to dinner with my friend, go see movies, pay for hotel rooms on road trips) but when the 'T" word comes up he becomes some ridiculously stingy miser.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Some rich people are assholes.

    This is a point I want to sort of give a personal disclaimer; I have a couple of friends who are rather well off (certainly not millionaires) but they do what they can and aren't money-hoarding shits. Plus they're good people in other respects.

    my counter point is my best friend's dad, who is one of the most powerful CPA's in the STATE, is a VERY nice man...except he HATES HATES HATES taxes

    I was mostly just going for the idea that there are obvious exceptions. I went on a rant about rich assholes to one of my friends, and she took a lot of offense on her father's behalf (well, her's too).

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    You know, we've done this dance before, and I'm not sure what to think of you still not getting it.

    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    You are missing the point of view that many hold wherein the rich, in an government-free system, would be subject to the masses of have-nots looking to capitalize on all the resources being in a central area.

    also wealth is DEFINED by the government, which is ironic. Most of the rich actually hold NO tangible resource BEYOND 'money' so they literally owe their ability to purchase commodities and resources they desire TO the government.

  • BuddiesBuddies Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Rich Germans lobby for higher taxes.
    The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality.

    Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach.

    "The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice," they say in the petition.

    Those who had "made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment" should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.

    This is doing it right.

    Why don't they create some new company and hire a couple employee's?

    And can we stop with the generalization that rich people are assholes? I know a lot of poor people that are huge assholes too. There are also a lot of assholes that make less than half of the average income in their area.

    This thread will boil down to
    wwtMask wrote: »
    [...] but generally speaking progressive taxation is good [...]

    The real debate lies in how much is too much? 70% at the highest level is too much. 20% at the highest level is too little. 30%-50% at the highest level is reasonable depending on the state of economy/country.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Some rich people are assholes.

    This is a point I want to sort of give a personal disclaimer; I have a couple of friends who are rather well off (certainly not millionaires) but they do what they can and aren't money-hoarding shits. Plus they're good people in other respects.

    I have a couple relatives who certainly are millionaires (owner/founder of a multinational retail chain...richer than fuck) and they're great people. Yeah, they stay comfortable...but beyond that they give everything they can. And you won't hear them complain about taxes.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Some rich people are assholes. They bitch about people getting government handouts (welfare, Medicaid, etc), but want a fucking tax cut, which is a goddamned handout. They hate welfare unless they, themselves, benefit, thus it's great in their minds to give handouts to corporations. They are getting the best damn deal in the world being rich in this nation, and they still complain. It's infuriating.

    Yeah I hate the whole false dichotomy that they've made. From a budget standpoint tax cuts vs increased spending yields the same end result: Less money

    why is one ok and the other the devil's work inself?

    Um...there's a pretty fundamental difference between the two. Yes, both lead to the government having less money, but that's only one aspect of it. One of them involves taking less money by force and redistributing it to others; and I think the idea is that eventually under tax cuts services would have to decline.

    I mean, I don't agree with them; I think progressive taxation is A-OK. And, in fact, necessary. But asking to pay the same tax rate as others doesn't really qualify as a "handout," unless you're only willing to look at the world and judge things in terms of the status quo.

    I guess I just have no problem at least understanding their argument, even if I then dismiss them as assholes. Trying to misinterpret it does nobody any good.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    You are missing the point of view that many hold wherein the rich, in an government-free system, would be subject to the masses of have-nots looking to capitalize on all the resources being in a central area.

    also wealth is DEFINED by the government, which is ironic. Most of the rich actually hold NO tangible resource BEYOND 'money' so they literally owe their ability to purchase commodities and resources they desire TO the government.

    Not to mention that government funded infrastructure makes commerce possible, and government funded education makes an educated workforce, and government funded law enforcement protects the assets of rich people, and government funded military keeps other countries from invading and seizing wealth and land.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?
    Now you're talking about a different issue. That isn't about taxes, it's about rich corporations and individuals being able to pay big money to lobbyists so their concerns get heard on Capitol Hill.

    Money influencing and/or corrupting the political process is certainly a major concern in this country. But it has nothing to do with taxes.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think it's safe to say that a lot of people with high incomes are also working very hard for their money. And those people like to think that they are successful purely because of their own merit. They do not enjoy being reminded that they owe a lot of their success to having other people help them or simply getting lucky in life.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    Financial success or failure is not directly due to the actions of the government.

    The ability to capitalize on that success or failure can be due to the protections the government provides.

    What's the entrepreneur class in Somalia or Afghanistan look like? Last I checked, Bill Gates doesn't have to bankroll his own private army to defend his wealth.

  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    The super-rich in the US have much more power to lobby congress. They do indeed get "government handouts" in the form of custom-tailored legislation passed to protect their interests and to advance their objectives, which ultimately makes them much more money.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that a lot of people with high incomes are also working very hard for their money. And those people like to think that they are successful purely because of their own merit. They do not enjoy being reminded that they owe a lot of their success to having other people help them or simply getting lucky in life.

    I find it increasingly ironic that the only truly "wealthy" man I know (financially) literally owes his wealth to the government, and yet hates the fact that he gets taxed

    He is an accountant

    Think about that

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Now we've had a lot of taxation threads before, so I don't want to retread all of that stuff too much, but generally speaking progressive taxation is good because the people who get the most use and benefit out of the government are the primary bankrollers of it. Amazingly enough, these happen to be rich people, despite the bullshit we're always told about "moochers" and "welfare queens". As I've said before, rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    Arguing about who gets more out of the government just seems incredibly pointless. It's like saying, in the event of total apocalypse, who would get screwed the most? Well, everyone would be pretty screwed. We should just structure the government to provide the most possible benefit to everyone, and if some people get a little more benefit than others, it really doesn't matter.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Elec mentioned that when rich business owners participate in certain programs which cos them money, they actually get tax reductions (or something to that effect). Rich people aren't assholes when they put money back into circulation. But these assholes like Rush Limbaugh who make millions, and then donate $100,000 a year to charity and pretend they've done more than their share and shouldn't pay high taxes, can eat a dick.

    I'm sure they're happy to know that there are people like them in the Bible.
    Luke 21
    1And He looked up and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury,

    2and He saw also a certain poor widow casting therein two mites.


    3And He said, "In truth I say unto you that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all.


    4For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God, but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Financial success or failure is not directly due to the actions of the government.

    The ability to capitalize on that success or failure can be due to the protections the government provides.

    What's the entrepreneur class in Somalia or Afghanistan look like? Last I checked, Bill Gates doesn't have to bankroll his own private army to defend his wealth.
    Other than a handful of radical libertarians and/or anarchists, nobody is calling for the abolition of government. There are basic governmental functions, such as roads and other infrastructure, law enforcement, courts and the military that almost no one objects to.

    The area of contention, it seems, involve social services and welfare and the use of tax dollars for the benefit of the politically connected (by way of such things as farm subsidies and the like).

    The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?
    Now you're talking about a different issue. That isn't about taxes, it's about rich corporations and individuals being able to pay big money to lobbyists so their concerns get heard on Capitol Hill.

    Money influencing and/or corrupting the political process is certainly a major concern in this country. But it has nothing to do with taxes.

    I'll concede that. A better example is how much more utility a rich person gets out of roads than I do. UPS (and by extension its executives) is get far more economic benefit per tax dollar for the upkeep of our highway system than I do. Without a reliably maintained highway system, UPS doesn't exist.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Financial success or failure is not directly due to the actions of the government.

    The ability to capitalize on that success or failure can be due to the protections the government provides.

    What's the entrepreneur class in Somalia or Afghanistan look like? Last I checked, Bill Gates doesn't have to bankroll his own private army to defend his wealth.
    Other than a handful of radical libertarians and/or anarchists, nobody is calling for the abolition of government. There are basic governmental functions, such as roads and other infrastructure, law enforcement, courts and the military that almost no one objects to.

    The area of contention, it seems, involve social services and welfare and the use of tax dollars for the benefit of the politically connected (by way of such things as farm subsidies and the like).

    The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.

    but the counter argument is comparing the relative levels of tax dollars going into each program (e.g. infrastructure vs. medicaid. or military vs. welfare)

    besides, 'rights' to me mean things like 'the right to electricity' the 'right' to have clean water the 'right' to have access to medical treatments

    all of those things are NOT provided by the government

    I think they should be

  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm going to have to agree with some of the points of the argument here, but there are a few that I disagree with. For one, yes rich people benefit from government services (security, legal rights, infrastructure to name several), however this is extended to all citizens no matter how much they pay. Many other government services they choose to not utilize (or are barred from using) is because they have the resources to get them elsewhere. Several people I knew in high school had very well-off families, and none of them got there by inheritance. Yes, there was some luck involved, but their parents worked their asses off to get there. This is where much of the anti-tax sentiment comes in: "If you didn't work as hard as I did, why should I foot any more of the bill than I am now?"

    I'm sure someone is going to bring up Laffer at some point, so I'll get this in early. The argument I prescribe to is there is a limit to where you can effectively tax someone (by effective I mean increase tax revenue). Taxation is a very complex thing to fiddle with due to how increases in one area may or may not affect another in the economy - it does no good to drive taxes so high to fund a program that those who would benefit from the program are no longer employed because there are no resources with which to pay them. This is a bit oversimplified, but I'll use it: calling for an increase in taxes may not have any noticeable effect on Bill Gates, but someone who was about to start a new green energy company with his $1 billion might not be able to if $600 million of that is suddenly missing.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Financial success or failure is not directly due to the actions of the government.

    The ability to capitalize on that success or failure can be due to the protections the government provides.

    What's the entrepreneur class in Somalia or Afghanistan look like? Last I checked, Bill Gates doesn't have to bankroll his own private army to defend his wealth.
    Other than a handful of radical libertarians and/or anarchists, nobody is calling for the abolition of government. There are basic governmental functions, such as roads and other infrastructure, law enforcement, courts and the military that almost no one objects to.

    The area of contention, it seems, involve social services and welfare and the use of tax dollars for the benefit of the politically connected (by way of such things as farm subsidies and the like).

    The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.

    The classical conservative view apparently ignores the "provide for the general welfare" part of the constitution. This goes back to my point from earlier: progressive taxation, higher taxes on those able to afford it, and social safety net services are the price rich people pay for not being subject to a French Revolution. You allow the lower class to grow and become angry at your own peril.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?
    Now you're talking about a different issue. That isn't about taxes, it's about rich corporations and individuals being able to pay big money to lobbyists so their concerns get heard on Capitol Hill.

    Money influencing and/or corrupting the political process is certainly a major concern in this country. But it has nothing to do with taxes.

    I'll concede that. A better example is how much more utility a rich person gets out of roads than I do. UPS (and by extension its executives) is get far more economic benefit per tax dollar for the upkeep of our highway system than I do. Without a reliably maintained highway system, UPS doesn't exist.
    Roads are a bad example for the point you're trying to make. People who use roads more tend to pay more into the treasury by way of gas taxes, tolls and the higher vehicle registration fees charged on commercial vehicles. UPS probably pays tens of millions of dollars in gas taxes every year, which cost gets passed on to its individual consumers.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    besides, 'rights' to me mean things like 'the right to electricity' the 'right' to have clean water the 'right' to have access to medical treatments

    all of those things are NOT provided by the government

    I think they should be
    We have the right to bear arms, per the 2nd Amendment. Should the government hand out free firearms?

    Freedom of the press is a right. Should the government pay for the cost of running newspapers and other media?

    What you are proposing is that if something is a right, the government is obligated to pay for it. Or are you just suggesting that government needs to pay for certain rights that you like?

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?
    Now you're talking about a different issue. That isn't about taxes, it's about rich corporations and individuals being able to pay big money to lobbyists so their concerns get heard on Capitol Hill.

    Money influencing and/or corrupting the political process is certainly a major concern in this country. But it has nothing to do with taxes.

    I'll concede that. A better example is how much more utility a rich person gets out of roads than I do. UPS (and by extension its executives) is get far more economic benefit per tax dollar for the upkeep of our highway system than I do. Without a reliably maintained highway system, UPS doesn't exist.
    Roads are a bad example for the point you're trying to make. People who use roads more tend to pay more into the treasury by way of gas taxes, tolls and the higher vehicle registration fees charged on commercial vehicles. UPS probably pays tens of millions of dollars in gas taxes every year, which cost gets passed on to its individual consumers.

    How is that a bad example? You just said yourself that the users (ie, the ones who benefit more) pay more taxes for upkeep. Your problem is that you're trying to separate direct taxes (fuel, tolls, etc) from the income tax revenue that will go towards transportation in the federal budget. I've never argued that the rich aren't paying more. My argument is that in terms of economic benefit, they have a better return on each tax dollar they pay.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    besides, 'rights' to me mean things like 'the right to electricity' the 'right' to have clean water the 'right' to have access to medical treatments

    all of those things are NOT provided by the government

    I think they should be
    We have the right to bear arms, per the 2nd Amendment. Should the government hand out free firearms?

    Freedom of the press is a right. Should the government pay for the cost of running newspapers and other media?

    What you are proposing is that if something is a right, the government is obligated to pay for it. Or are you just suggesting that government needs to pay for certain rights that you like?

    well to me, there is a difference between "rights" to bear arms and "rights" to water/food/electricity/etc

    without one of those rights, you will wither and die
    the other is more of a freedom

    i think the two are often conflated, when I don't feel they mean the same thing

    the "right" to bear arms is really the government saying that they wont STOP you from getting guns
    I guess they aren't STOPPING us from getting food and water

    also- isn't a laywer provided for you if you can't afford one? Isn't HAVING a laywer a 'right'?

    if someone can't afford things, why not provide them with a basic level of that 'right'?
    if the US government would give people guns if you couldn't afford them I wouldn't be too upset at the PRINCIPLE (but i just don' t like guns)

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?
    Now you're talking about a different issue. That isn't about taxes, it's about rich corporations and individuals being able to pay big money to lobbyists so their concerns get heard on Capitol Hill.

    Money influencing and/or corrupting the political process is certainly a major concern in this country. But it has nothing to do with taxes.

    I'll concede that. A better example is how much more utility a rich person gets out of roads than I do. UPS (and by extension its executives) is get far more economic benefit per tax dollar for the upkeep of our highway system than I do. Without a reliably maintained highway system, UPS doesn't exist.
    Roads are a bad example for the point you're trying to make. People who use roads more tend to pay more into the treasury by way of gas taxes, tolls and the higher vehicle registration fees charged on commercial vehicles. UPS probably pays tens of millions of dollars in gas taxes every year, which cost gets passed on to its individual consumers.

    How is that a bad example? You just said yourself that the users (ie, the ones who benefit more) pay more taxes for upkeep. Your problem is that you're trying to separate direct taxes (fuel, tolls, etc) from the income tax revenue that will go towards transportation in the federal budget. I've never argued that the rich aren't paying more. My argument is that in terms of economic benefit, they have a better return on each tax dollar they pay.
    Ah, I see your point. But general taxes aren't comparable to user fees. In terms of gas taxes and tolls, you have a direct connection between use/benefit and cost. That's not the case when it comes to general income taxes paid into the treaury. User fees for government services are a great idea, if you can allocate who is using what directly. But taxes and expenditures don't generally work that way- tax dollars tend to be allocated where they are needed most (based on whatever criteria government uses) but the people who use the most government services, per capita (such as people on welfare, medicaid and the like) tend to pay the least into the treasury.

    Government services are the exact opposite of how the private sector works, in that the people who pay the least tend to get the most out of government.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    besides, 'rights' to me mean things like 'the right to electricity' the 'right' to have clean water the 'right' to have access to medical treatments

    all of those things are NOT provided by the government

    I think they should be
    We have the right to bear arms, per the 2nd Amendment. Should the government hand out free firearms?

    Freedom of the press is a right. Should the government pay for the cost of running newspapers and other media?

    What you are proposing is that if something is a right, the government is obligated to pay for it. Or are you just suggesting that government needs to pay for certain rights that you like?

    well to me, there is a difference between "rights" to bear arms and "rights" to water/food/electricity/etc

    without one of those rights, you will wither and die
    the other is more of a freedom

    i think the two are often conflated, when I don't feel they mean the same thing

    the "right" to bear arms is really the government saying that they wont STOP you from getting guns
    I guess they aren't STOPPING us from getting food and water

    also- isn't a laywer provided for you if you can't afford one? Isn't HAVING a laywer a 'right'?

    It's almost as if somebody recognized that having the right to a lawyer absent the means to actually hire one was pretty meaningless, and destroyed one's realistic probability of a fair trial.

    I almost feel like an analogy between this and healthcare could be drawn.
    if someone can't afford things, why not provide them with a basic level of that 'right'?
    if the US government would give people guns if you couldn't afford them I wouldn't be too upset at the PRINCIPLE (but i just don' t like guns)

    Honestly we only just how got to the point where we've acknowledged guns as an individual right.

    And nothing is stopping a family from using general aid (say, the Earned Income Tax Credit) to purchase a reasonably priced firearm to exercise their second amendment rights. You can pick up a decent semi-auto handgun for like $300 (and that's new, and retail), or a shotgun for less.

    We may not hand out guns, but we hand out money that people can use to buy the guns they have a right to (or money they can use on other necessities, freeing up the money for a gun...I've seen plenty of people on food stamps driving better cars than mine).
    Government services are the exact opposite of how the private sector works, in that the people who pay the least tend to get the most out of government.

    See, and most of us here simply won't agree, primarily because you seem to take "getting the most out of government" only in the most direct and literal sense.

    For instance, the CEO of Halliburton has probably never drawn a welfare check.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    I disagree with the super red. As an attorney, don't you benefit significantly more from the court system than a poor person. Hell, your entire trade is based on its existence.

    Similarly, a poor person gets an education for themselves from our school system. A wealthy person potentially gets a labor pool.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Climate change legislation has been held up because it affects the bottom line of corporations. Same with healthcare reform and financial reform. This is directly affecting the wealth of rich people, and because they're wealthy their concerns are given more weight than my concerns. How the fuck is the not an example of rich people getting more bang for their tax buck than me?
    Now you're talking about a different issue. That isn't about taxes, it's about rich corporations and individuals being able to pay big money to lobbyists so their concerns get heard on Capitol Hill.

    Money influencing and/or corrupting the political process is certainly a major concern in this country. But it has nothing to do with taxes.

    I'll concede that. A better example is how much more utility a rich person gets out of roads than I do. UPS (and by extension its executives) is get far more economic benefit per tax dollar for the upkeep of our highway system than I do. Without a reliably maintained highway system, UPS doesn't exist.
    Roads are a bad example for the point you're trying to make. People who use roads more tend to pay more into the treasury by way of gas taxes, tolls and the higher vehicle registration fees charged on commercial vehicles. UPS probably pays tens of millions of dollars in gas taxes every year, which cost gets passed on to its individual consumers.

    How is that a bad example? You just said yourself that the users (ie, the ones who benefit more) pay more taxes for upkeep. Your problem is that you're trying to separate direct taxes (fuel, tolls, etc) from the income tax revenue that will go towards transportation in the federal budget. I've never argued that the rich aren't paying more. My argument is that in terms of economic benefit, they have a better return on each tax dollar they pay.
    Ah, I see your point. But general taxes aren't comparable to user fees. In terms of gas taxes and tolls, you have a direct connection between use/benefit and cost. That's not the case when it comes to general income taxes paid into the treaury. User fees for government services are a great idea, if you can allocate who is using what directly. But taxes and expenditures don't generally work that way- tax dollars tend to be allocated where they are needed most (based on whatever criteria government uses) but the people who use the most government services, per capita (such as people on welfare, medicaid and the like) tend to pay the least into the treasury.

    Government services are the exact opposite of how the private sector works, in that the people who pay the least tend to get the most out of government.

    That's where we disagree; I think the people who are getting the most benefit aren't getting checks from the government.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    I disagree with the super red. As an attorney, don't you benefit significantly more from the court system than a poor person. Hell, your entire trade is based on its existence.

    Similarly, a poor person gets an education for themselves from our school system. A wealthy person potentially gets a labor pool.

    A wealthy person gets a labor pool AND has access to that exact same education to boot.
    That's where we disagree; I think the people who are getting the most benefit aren't getting checks from the government.

    Yeah, I fail to see how this is hard to understand.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, and most of us here simply won't agree, primarily because you seem to take "getting the most out of government" only in the most direct and literal sense.

    This. THIS. THIS.

    Also- I really enjoy when people (even those who are in favor of things like welfare) say things like "That guy on food stamps has a better car than me!"

    Without realizing

    that poor financial decisions like that are the reason they are ON food stamps

    besides- think about this. If you are a CEO of, say, a car company. If the government provided more basic amenities to people (or at least the funds to acquire them) then that frees up more of THEIR money to purchase Luxury goods. Like a sports car. Or a PS3.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    I disagree with the super red. As an attorney, don't you benefit significantly more from the court system than a poor person. Hell, your entire trade is based on its existence.

    Similarly, a poor person gets an education for themselves from our school system. A wealthy person potentially gets a labor pool.

    Not to mention the fact that if you have the money, in civil court you can bury someone who doesn't have money in legal fees and court procedure until they drop the case or go broke.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have to disagree with the bolded. Wealthy and poor people get the same basic services from government in terms of law enforcement, roads, a court system and the like. However, per capita, poor people tend to consume more in the way of public services such as welfare, publicly-funded medical service and other welfare and social services programs.

    The argument that rich people somehow get more out of government than poor people doesn't hold water, unless you subscribe to the view that financial success or failure is due to the actions of government.

    I disagree with the super red. As an attorney, don't you benefit significantly more from the court system than a poor person. Hell, your entire trade is based on its existence.

    Similarly, a poor person gets an education for themselves from our school system. A wealthy person potentially gets a labor pool.

    man i totally just said that, but with accountant. and taxes.

  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ...want a fucking tax cut, which is a goddamned handout.


    That's a massively false statement, unless you believe the government has a presumed ownership of all private wealth and property.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    rich people pay taxes for the privilege of being rich and having their riches protected from something like a populist revolution against their excesses.

    And this is akin to extortion. You're equating taxes to "protection money". EVERYONE benefits from a society of laws where wealth and property are protected.
    Henroid wrote: »
    assholes like Rush Limbaugh who make millions, and then donate $100,000 a year to charity and pretend they've done more than their share and shouldn't pay high taxes, can eat a dick.

    Limbaugh is a private citizen, so nobody can be sure exactly what he gives, but here's a wikipedia listing on one of his charities:
    Leukemia and lymphoma telethon

    Limbaugh holds an annual fundraising telethon called the "EIB Cure-a-Thon"[81] for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.[82] In 2006 the EIB Cure-a-Thon conducted its 16th annual telethon, raising $1.7 million;[83] totaling over $15 million since the first cure-a-thon.[84] According to Leukemia and Lymphoma Society annual reports, Limbaugh personally contributed between $100,000 and $499,999 from 2000–2005 and 2007,[85] and Limbaugh claims to have contributed around $250,000 in 2003, 2004 and 2005.[86] NewsMax reported Limbaugh donated $250,000 in 2006,[87] and the Society's 2006 annual report placed him in the $500,000 to $999,999 category.[85] Limbaugh donated $320,000 during the 2007 Cure-a-Thon[88] which the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society reported had raised $3.1 million.[89] On his radio program April 18, 2008, Limbaugh claimed to pledge $400,000 to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society after being challenged by two listeners to increase his initial pledge of $300,000.[90]

«13456741
Sign In or Register to comment.