I mean I am just asking the question, if you are paying more than another dude in tax, when tax breaks come around shouldn't it stand to reason that you should get more money back than a dude that is paying less?
no because you need your money less
Why? Theoretically minimum wage will support you. Why should I work harder than someone else when apparently I don't deserve the money that I earned? Are you saying that I should then only work 2 days a week just so I can also line on the minimum wage? You might say I need my money less, but what incentive do I have then of earning more money if I am apparently not deserving of it?
No one has problem paying taxes. I mean sure it would be neat if no one had to, but realistically that wont happen. It's like an investment, if I put more money into a company in than someone else, I expect a greater ROI than someone that does not. Otherwise what is the point of putting in a greater amount of money?
no he means that you need each individual dollar less than a person who is much poorer than you are does
this is really simple so hopefully you are just being willfully obtuse.....
No you are ignoring the fact that people that earn high amounts of money take on high amounts of risk and pressure and as such every dollar earned means more because there are higher stakes behind the money you earned.
Really you argument boils down to, I have less than you and I want more stuff despite taking far lower risks to achieve it compared to someone that earns more. My point is that when a tax cut comes around shouldn't the people that put the most in be the greatest beneficiaries when money is returned as tax cuts to the people? Especially when they are the ones that use what the tax money (welfare) is spent on the least?
You're making the assumption that tax cuts only arrive because the government has extra money lying around. There's plenty of other reasons for tax cuts.
You're also arguing something that makes no sense. Someone who is born into a Harvard legacy risks virtually nothing in order to get a great degree and a huge number of opportunities, while a person born into a family that's never sent someone to college has to work and make a huge risk in the form of loans or direct payments to school to get a shot at the same kind of opportunity. Risks are not commensurate with reward between actors unless you start from identical initial "investment" positions.
Finally, it's not true that the wealthiest people benefit the least from government programs. They benefit the most, because they allow society to function in such a way that their privilege and their work can earn them the larger rewards. You don't get Medicaid, sure but you get a society that can supply you with a job that comes with Blue Cross Blue Shield. You benefit immensely more.
Jonathan Chait, in The New Republic, reacted to the Journal editorial by writing:
One of the things that has fascinated me about The Wall Street Journal editorial page is its occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies.
Ah YES! Score one for capitalism. And I was really worried we were going to start moving towards socialism. That was a close one! And don't you listen to these haters Blaket, I agree with you 100%. This board is full of flaming liberals who just don't know any better.
Tabasco on
Life is too important to be taken seriously.
-Oscar Wilde
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
please everyone in america read the bolded portion of MrMonroe's post thx
I find it amazing that we can have a whole national ideology predicated on the normative goal of "I should be able to give my children a better life than I had" and then totally ignore any social or economic argument that takes the notion of privileged actors into account.
blake you seem to be thinking of tax returns as some magical even distribution
think of tax returns as kind of an aftertax-it all burns down to you earning more and therefore giving back more
you also seem to believe that your money is worth more than a poor person's earned money? and that poor people are getting 'more' as opposed to 'what they need to survive'
actually most of the post you've made seem to imply that you think poor people are people living just fine (people able to support themselved on minimum wage? really?) and that the money they get back is to have their standard of living raised to yours
I understand that people that earn more tax should pay more. I do not have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with incremental tax system. My question still remains, that when tax brackets are shifted it is a crime that people that pay the most tax strangely get the most back!
I mean look at the numbers that were theoretically thrown out in the story.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
The tenth had the least percentage saving but yet puts in 20 times the amount.
You're making the assumption that tax cuts only arrive because the government has extra money lying around. There's plenty of other reasons for tax cuts.
No I am saying that when there is money lying around. You are right, there are many reasons for tax cuts, but this is one of them. If there are other reasons, that's cool too I don't expect to magically just get tax breaks. But when there is a general payout because of surplus why can't the people that put the most money in benefit from it.
I'm not as much for socialism as I am for fair capitalism
I think everybody should have the same chances to improve their lives as rich people do
I really really really really really doubt this is possible in a society which would be described as 'capitalist' by basically anyone who is alive today
well you see llama, the reason I am so cynical about the world is that MANY of the things I care about improving don't seem possible at all!
I didn't just wake up and decide I hated most things one day.
Jonathan Chait, in The New Republic, reacted to the Journal editorial by writing:
One of the things that has fascinated me about The Wall Street Journal editorial page is its occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies.
blake you seem to be thinking of tax returns as some magical even distribution
think of tax returns as kind of an aftertax-it all burns down to you earning more and therefore giving back more
you also seem to believe that your money is worth more than a poor person's earned money? and that poor people are getting 'more' as opposed to 'what they need to survive'
actually most of the post you've made seem to imply that you think poor people are people living just fine (people able to support themselved on minimum wage? really?) and that the money they get back is to have their standard of living raised to yours
I understand that people that earn more tax should pay more. I do not have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with incremental tax system. My question still remains, that when tax brackets are shifted it is a crime that people that pay the most tax strangely get the most back!
I mean look at the numbers that were theoretically thrown out in the story.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
The tenth had the least percentage saving but yet puts in 20 times the amount.
You're making the assumption that tax cuts only arrive because the government has extra money lying around. There's plenty of other reasons for tax cuts.
No I am saying that when there is money lying around. You are right, there are many reasons for tax cuts, but this is one of them. If there are other reasons, that's cool too I don't expect to magically just get tax breaks. But when there is a general payout because of surplus why can't the people that put the most money in benefit from it.
well gosh, in that case I am glad that tax policy isnt decided on the basis of retarded e-mail forwards. cheers.
blake you seem to be thinking of tax returns as some magical even distribution
think of tax returns as kind of an aftertax-it all burns down to you earning more and therefore giving back more
you also seem to believe that your money is worth more than a poor person's earned money? and that poor people are getting 'more' as opposed to 'what they need to survive'
actually most of the post you've made seem to imply that you think poor people are people living just fine (people able to support themselved on minimum wage? really?) and that the money they get back is to have their standard of living raised to yours
I understand that people that earn more tax should pay more. I do not have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with incremental tax system. My question still remains, that when tax brackets are shifted it is a crime that people that pay the most tax strangely get the most back!
.
these two sentences
i get what youre trying to say and how, theoretically, it makes sense
but i am going to repeat that tax breaks aren't meant to be fair, they're meant to benefit those who need them
I was sitting on facebook reading through News feed and I saw a stupid status update that made me mad and I felt a really sharp pain in my stomach. It's gone now though.
I'm not as much for socialism as I am for fair capitalism
I think everybody should have the same chances to improve their lives as rich people do
I really really really really really doubt this is possible in a society which would be described as 'capitalist' by basically anyone who is alive today
well you see llama, the reason I am so cynical about the world is that MANY of the things I care about improving don't seem possible at all!
I didn't just wake up and decide I hated most things one day.
well I'm saying it might seem more possible if you stopped thinking of socialism as a bad word (making an assumption here based on being american, apologies if it's wrong) and crossed the bridge to democratic socialism
although then you would probably just get frustrated and angry at shitheads using socialist as a pejorative, hmm.
actually i apologize tabasco that was pretty ad hominem of me
you're an alright dude
Oh thanks man. I was just trolling myself; well I am also happy about what happened being a Libertarian and all. But I mean, I was totally asking for it haha.
Tabasco on
Life is too important to be taken seriously.
-Oscar Wilde
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
blake you seem to be thinking of tax returns as some magical even distribution
think of tax returns as kind of an aftertax-it all burns down to you earning more and therefore giving back more
you also seem to believe that your money is worth more than a poor person's earned money? and that poor people are getting 'more' as opposed to 'what they need to survive'
actually most of the post you've made seem to imply that you think poor people are people living just fine (people able to support themselved on minimum wage? really?) and that the money they get back is to have their standard of living raised to yours
I understand that people that earn more tax should pay more. I do not have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with incremental tax system. My question still remains, that when tax brackets are shifted it is a crime that people that pay the most tax strangely get the most back!
I mean look at the numbers that were theoretically thrown out in the story.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
The tenth had the least percentage saving but yet puts in 20 times the amount.
You're making the assumption that tax cuts only arrive because the government has extra money lying around. There's plenty of other reasons for tax cuts.
No I am saying that when there is money lying around. You are right, there are many reasons for tax cuts, but this is one of them. If there are other reasons, that's cool too I don't expect to magically just get tax breaks. But when there is a general payout because of surplus why can't the people that put the most money in benefit from it.
Ah, ok, I see what you're getting at. No, there's nothing wrong with that sort of a refund scheme, hypothetically. There are plenty of moral, ethical, and practical reasons for a progressive taxation structure, but none of them are specifically quantifiable. You're down to general guidelines, and there's no reason to say any of the figures you just threw out would be outside of them.
Of course, I would argue that your best guidance in that sort of a scenario would be to make a forecast of how the general welfare would be most improved by the use of the surplus. It may be that the aggregate citizen benefits the most from spending the money instead of refunding it. (though that's not often likely to be the case)
Ah YES! Score one for capitalism. And I was really worried we were going to start moving towards socialism. That was a close one! And don't you listen to these haters Blaket, I agree with you 100%. This board is full of flaming liberals who just don't know any better.
hahahahahahahahhahahaAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Gotta love that the red scare is a living, breathing, hundred-year-old bogeyman.
No you are ignoring the fact that people that earn high amounts of money take on high amounts of risk and pressure and as such every dollar earned means more because there are higher stakes behind the money you earned.
Really you argument boils down to, I have less than you and I want more stuff despite taking far lower risks to achieve it compared to someone that earns more. My point is that when a tax cut comes around shouldn't the people that put the most in be the greatest beneficiaries when money is returned as tax cuts to the people? Especially when they are the ones that use what the tax money (welfare) is spent on the least?
for this page: reminder that there is a thing called "decreasing marginal utility" and that blaket has literally never heard of it, yet continues to post
What's even funnier is that I posted that as my facebook status. Out of the 300 or so friends I have on there only one other is conservative. My friends HATE me right now and I can't stop laughing.
Tabasco on
Life is too important to be taken seriously.
-Oscar Wilde
Ah YES! Score one for capitalism. And I was really worried we were going to start moving towards socialism. That was a close one! And don't you listen to these haters Blaket, I agree with you 100%. This board is full of flaming liberals who just don't know any better.
hahahahahahahahhahahaAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Gotta love that the red scare is a living, breathing, hundred-year-old bogeyman.
Posts
they pay a lot more for things, though
the bell has rung
beautiful knockout
this is a quote that I like
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
-Oscar Wilde
I find it amazing that we can have a whole national ideology predicated on the normative goal of "I should be able to give my children a better life than I had" and then totally ignore any social or economic argument that takes the notion of privileged actors into account.
do you see now what you have become
there is still time to turn back
I understand that people that earn more tax should pay more. I do not have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with incremental tax system. My question still remains, that when tax brackets are shifted it is a crime that people that pay the most tax strangely get the most back!
I mean look at the numbers that were theoretically thrown out in the story.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
The tenth had the least percentage saving but yet puts in 20 times the amount.
No I am saying that when there is money lying around. You are right, there are many reasons for tax cuts, but this is one of them. If there are other reasons, that's cool too I don't expect to magically just get tax breaks. But when there is a general payout because of surplus why can't the people that put the most money in benefit from it.
Satans..... hints.....
well you see llama, the reason I am so cynical about the world is that MANY of the things I care about improving don't seem possible at all!
I didn't just wake up and decide I hated most things one day.
I would like to read the editorial
this is something i would like to point out
am I supposed to feel bad for him, think he's dumb, or both
help me out here
Maybe he shouldn't have used the stuff so liberally.
read all of mrmonroe's post and try to absorb the full meaning of it
stop obsessing over your numbers; let it go
both I think
steam
The pill contained meth as well as two other piperazines, but you are mostly correct.
-Oscar Wilde
This is aces.
-Oscar Wilde
you only supporting our case
well gosh, in that case I am glad that tax policy isnt decided on the basis of retarded e-mail forwards. cheers.
you're an alright dude
i won't say i don't question your judgment though
And why would I care what some haters think? You are all very silly.
-Oscar Wilde
<
steam
these two sentences
i get what youre trying to say and how, theoretically, it makes sense
but i am going to repeat that tax breaks aren't meant to be fair, they're meant to benefit those who need them
Yeah, I thought it was sarcasm too.
Sadly, we were wrong. He is the dumbs.
I think I might be getting an ulcer.
I was sitting on facebook reading through News feed and I saw a stupid status update that made me mad and I felt a really sharp pain in my stomach. It's gone now though.
well I'm saying it might seem more possible if you stopped thinking of socialism as a bad word (making an assumption here based on being american, apologies if it's wrong) and crossed the bridge to democratic socialism
although then you would probably just get frustrated and angry at shitheads using socialist as a pejorative, hmm.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Oh thanks man. I was just trolling myself; well I am also happy about what happened being a Libertarian and all. But I mean, I was totally asking for it haha.
-Oscar Wilde
Ah, ok, I see what you're getting at. No, there's nothing wrong with that sort of a refund scheme, hypothetically. There are plenty of moral, ethical, and practical reasons for a progressive taxation structure, but none of them are specifically quantifiable. You're down to general guidelines, and there's no reason to say any of the figures you just threw out would be outside of them.
Of course, I would argue that your best guidance in that sort of a scenario would be to make a forecast of how the general welfare would be most improved by the use of the surplus. It may be that the aggregate citizen benefits the most from spending the money instead of refunding it. (though that's not often likely to be the case)
Gotta love that the red scare is a living, breathing, hundred-year-old bogeyman.
for this page: reminder that there is a thing called "decreasing marginal utility" and that blaket has literally never heard of it, yet continues to post
-Oscar Wilde
post cold war babies REPRESENT
steam