Take from the rich...

[cannon_fodder]

Ruf:

No, I am not going to medical school.  I have a BA in  Accounting, a BA in Finance, and a Juris Doctorate.  Medical School is not in the cards (my wife would kill me if I tried to go to college for ANOTHER 8 years).

I was referring to any individual that choses to do so.  It would certainly NOT be uncommon for a specialist to earn over $200,000 a year (read: not me).  And while you "calling me out" on my economics knowledge was amusing, you STILL did not answer the question:  what did such a person do that deserves punishment?  And yes, taking an additional 4% of someones wage certainly is punishment.

I support student government programs that loan money to any American who desires an education as they are non-dischargeable and in the long run serve to better our country.  I do not support grants based on what someones parents earn, on race, nor gender. College loans are not by definition "socialist" if they provide for all members of society.  

And let me assure you, getting funding for college in America today is no real chore, since it is non-dischargeable most kids can take their full $18,000 Stafford and $6,000 Perkins loans and top that off with another $15,000 if private unsecured loans.   If you can't find a school to go to on $39,000 a year then you simply need to lower your standards or improve your grades (scholarship).  It sucks graduating ~$100,000 in debt (trust me) but its an INVESTMENT.  

and I'm sorry you failed to properly manage your time in college, but again... why punish those who did?  I still fail to see any logic in punishing those members of society who exemplify what most Americans wish to achieve.

[tim huntzinger]

I do not understand using the word 'punish' in this context.  That was never used in the river tax debate, why 'punish' County Tulsans who never use the river?  You supported that.  Why punish Americans who do not want to support the VOA? You supported that.
The fact is without cutting spending and increasing taxes the punishment will become 'confisticatory' very soon. Calling high tax rates punishment is like calling waterboarding 'torture.'

[RecycleMichael]

The easiest way to reduce federal government spending is to end the war in Iraq.

I admit to being a peace activist, but any fiscal conservative should also agree that the war has spiraled our country into deeper debt.

Look at this website...

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

It shows how much the war has cost America and can even show how much it has cost Tulsans. For Tulsa residents, the war in Iraq has cost almost $850,000,000. That money could have done the river improvements, fixed many of our roads, and hired dozens more policemen.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The easiest way to reduce federal government spending is to end the war in Iraq.

I admit to being a peace activist, but any fiscal conservative should also agree that the war has spiraled our country into deeper debt.

Look at this website...

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

It shows how much the war has cost America and can even show how much it has cost Tulsans. For Tulsa residents, the war in Iraq has cost almost $850,000,000. That money could have done the river improvements, fixed many of our roads, and hired dozens more policemen.

How do you propose we do that?  Just curious.

As you formulate your answer, take in consideration a few things:

1. Nearly 50 million people dependant on our protection from influences from the North and within thier own radical sects.

2. A position that after Iran takes control (which they said they intend to do) will most certanly mean the invasion and control of Kuwait.

3. Because Kuwait is all that holds our small amount of control on the energy market in place, we will be choked.  (I however think that the increases in oil prices have done more to help our drive for energy independence than anything else).

4. The unification of Syria, Libya and Iraq into an Islamic state under Iran (Syria and Libya to some extent have already indicated a fondness for the idea).

5. Israel will most certainly be attacked, and then we will be obligated to go back and fight unless we just want to just protest, or let the UN handle it (they do such a wonderful job!).

6. During all this fun, the individual Islamic sects will vie for dominance through the killing of each other until a respected Ayatollah provides the necessary guidance as to which sects must be exterminated.

7. The billions of dollars in oil revenue that will flow into the new capital in Iran will make the new fall fashions (the nuclear backpack, and atomic sport coat) a simple and feasible.

8. Iran is the only keystone holding everything together, so other Arab states will certainly join.  Especially after the defeat of the americans and the destruction of everything we helped to create in the region.

9. Russa, China, and Korea will receive inexpensive oil, skyrocketing their economies and creating another set of problems that I cannot even begin to anticipate!

10. Money is far from the issue here.  Tulsa streets have been bad for 40 years regardless of countless tax increases.  


I get so tired of liberals (many of whom I respect greatly, because I used to be one) suggesting that we take a course of action that they spent no time researching.  Many of our political candidates make the statement "I have a plan to get the troops out of Iraq."  If you have a plan, and you would like for us to support it, then please SHARE it with us.  The 1% of us that have done the research and understand the region to some extent would like to know about your PLAN and how it takes into consideration many of the negative factors (only a few of which I have mentioned).  

This is a grand game of Chess that we have been playing for over 40 years.  We almost lost during the late 70s when we attempted diplomacy, and again in the 90s when we thought that we could just lob missiles from afar.

I respect that you are an ACTIVIST with a CAUSE, but I also understand the political definition of both of these terms and how they affect an individual's ability to walk blindly into a situation or to defend a position regardless of fact.  As a reformed activist myself I encourage you to question every position and review the outcomes.  It will help you to formulate logical CAUSES that will help you to evolve from an ACTIVIST (militant slave to a doctrine), to a VISIONARY (clear, distinctive and specific understanding of the future). Your CAUSES will become GOALS and you will be much more interesting at a cocktail party.

Respectfully
Bill Spoon

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I do not understand using the word 'punish' in this context.  That was never used in the river tax debate, why 'punish' County Tulsans who never use the river?  You supported that.  Why punish Americans who do not want to support the VOA? You supported that.
The fact is without cutting spending and increasing taxes the punishment will become 'confisticatory' very soon. Calling high tax rates punishment is like calling waterboarding 'torture.'

That analogy is completely assigning.  one voluntarily engages in waterboarding for ones own pleasure.  One gets taxed involuntarily and in this instance it is for another's pleasure.  

Likewise, your analogy to the River Tax is not admissible because that tax was levied without regard to who was paying it.  If you buy goods, you pay the tax.  NOT, if you do not use the river you must pay the tax.  The causal nature of a "if you earn X you pay Y" is far different than a blanket tax.

Similarly, revenue for the VOA is collected for the betterment of the nation as a whole FROM the nation as a whole.  It is not taken from a specific group to bennefit another specific group.

And finally, a punishment is a devise meant to dissuade or penalize an act.  "If you make more than X we are going to fine you Y" could be viewed in this context.  It certainly is not a reward for doing well and it falls well below neutrality.  The sole reason more money will be taken is to to the act of earning additional money.  Hence, they are being punished for that act.

Do you truly not grasp the enormous differences involved or are you being obtuse just to aggravate me?  

Perhaps I need to rephrase my incredibly simply question:  I hereby deem your earnings to be in excess of my own.  I live comfortably, but not as comfortably as you do.  Therefor, I demand the government take money from you and give it to me.  Explain to me why you should be force to suffer a detriment to my benefit?  

- - -

and again RM, I would support a war tax proposal that reminded all Americans that our government is spending money like water.  Certainly you would agree that taxing 2% of our population would do little to pass this message along and thus, not help end the war (nor would it be effective in funding the war effort really).  So long as the rich are paying for it and the poor are dying (or so the perception is, when really the middle class supply the VAST majority of service members) the middle class and retired voters will not be calling for an end.

A national "war tax" in the nature of a sales tax would be required to really show Americans how much damn money we are spending daily in Iraq (specifically, $1,000,000 per day, per soldier).  Or a tax on refunds... the government keeps 10% of refunds to help fund the war.

Something anyway.  As it stands the politicians have an incentive to spend all they can to milk the tit of government and the people don't seem to care. Within 10 years there will be major financial chaos and everyone will be pointing fingers across the isle.  Screw 'em both, the fiscal problems of this nation are very clear but no one has the balls to stand up and say we need to drastically increase taxes and/or (better yet) drastically reduce spending.

Argh!

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by guido911


Again, spoken like a typical have not.

Spoken like a typical Tulsa conservative elitist...

You know, I've spoken to many "haves" over the years... in quite a few different cities, different social circles... the president (or maybe he was VP) of an oil company, the wife of a university president... an affluent and extremely successful graduate of Culver Academy, a uniquely talented freshman at Harvard, arts donors, etc, etc, etc...

"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.  Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him."

"I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being."

"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures."

---Theodore Roosevelt


"It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach."

"Don't forget what I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars."

"Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

---Franklin D. Roosevelt

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

First, why are you so envious of those who have succeeded. Second, do you not understand that those people earning over 200K are already in the 35% plus tax bracket. What percentage should those people pay for the same exact sort of government services those paying no taxes receive? Meanwhile, if these 200Kers pay more in taxes, what do you think will happen to the charitable donations they make? You know, money to those groups that provide services for the poor and needy by far more efficient and cost-effective means than the government.

Here's a thought, keep your typical Tulsan freeloading hand out of my pocket.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by guido911


Again, spoken like a typical have not.

Spoken like a typical Tulsa conservative elitist...

Awww. . .Buck up, rainbow fish.  We are all eliete in our own special way.  

Some of us are good investers or fast runners, while others are snappy dressers or good winers.  We all have our own special gifts.

Still dosent give me the right to take away someone's money because they are a good invester, or take away thier shoes because they are a fast runner, or steal their pants because they are a snappy dresser, or TAKE YOUR VOICE BECAUSE YOU ARE A GOOD WINER.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

--RUSH

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I do not understand using the word 'punish' in this context.  That was never used in the river tax debate, why 'punish' County Tulsans who never use the river?  You supported that.  Why punish Americans who do not want to support the VOA? You supported that.
The fact is without cutting spending and increasing taxes the punishment will become 'confisticatory' very soon. Calling high tax rates punishment is like calling waterboarding 'torture.'

That analogy is completely assigning.  one voluntarily engages in waterboarding for ones own pleasure.  One gets taxed involuntarily and in this instance it is for another's pleasure.  

Likewise, your analogy to the River Tax is not admissible because that tax was levied without regard to who was paying it.  If you buy goods, you pay the tax.  NOT, if you do not use the river you must pay the tax.  The causal nature of a "if you earn X you pay Y" is far different than a blanket tax.

Similarly, revenue for the VOA is collected for the betterment of the nation as a whole FROM the nation as a whole.  It is not taken from a specific group to bennefit another specific group.

And finally, a punishment is a devise meant to dissuade or penalize an act.  "If you make more than X we are going to fine you Y" could be viewed in this context.  It certainly is not a reward for doing well and it falls well below neutrality.  The sole reason more money will be taken is to to the act of earning additional money.  Hence, they are being punished for that act.

Do you truly not grasp the enormous differences involved or are you being obtuse just to aggravate me?  

Perhaps I need to rephrase my incredibly simply question:  I hereby deem your earnings to be in excess of my own.  I live comfortably, but not as comfortably as you do.  Therefor, I demand the government take money from you and give it to me.  Explain to me why you should be force to suffer a detriment to my benefit?  

Waterboarding is not used to punish, it is used to extract information.  Punishment would be, 'Mr. Criminal, you will be waterboarded five times in addition to your sentence.'  Paying taxes is certainly voluntary, if you do not like America . . . Punishment is sanctioning an act which is deemed antisocial, unsocial, or harmful.  The word 'penalty' is not much better, either way asinine for sure.

What could punish Tulsans more than taxing their food, medications, and necessities?  You were all about the River Tax and now you are a tax hawk?  Ha ha ha!

The VOA certainly harbors a protected class, or you have no idea how great them Fed jobs are.

I am not one for a money-hungry government, but I also will not diminish the deaths of totalitarian regimes to petulantly complain about a tax hike on those making seven to eight times the average Tulsan's salary.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

First, the "hardship" is that to the "rich" (whoever that is) it is their money being taken from them under force of law and not your money. The hardship is that such is discriminatory and socialist.  

As to revenue source, as is the case in my family, if we cannot afford something, we do not buy it. That means, if this country cannot afford the Iraq war, then we cannot have an Iraq war. If that means we cannot afford free public education or quality roads or a developed river, then we cannot have those things either. However, the notion that this country should have all these things, and that the "rich" and not everyone should pay for it even though it is for the benefit of everyone is unAmerican and smacks of redistribution of wealth.

As for "ability to pay", what exactly does that mean? Does that means that rich people are not permitted to spend their money as they see fit on larger homes, private schools for their kids, and on charitable causes but instead give it to the government?

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Well the govt allrady takes 1/3 of thier income.  We will never retun to the pre-Reagan days when the government took more than half the income of the wealthy.  In fact we now have a better understanding of the relationship between taxation and tax revenue.

We have demonstrated that raising taxes on the wealthy is damaging to the very people that it is supposed to benifit (the poor).  When taxes on the wealthy are increased, prices for goods and services increase as well as unemployment because it is the wealthy who own the companies, and must adjust prices to compensate for lost income.  In this case, unemployment increases due to reduced purchasing power.



Accordingly, when tax rates are decreased on the wealthy, tax revenue increases, because there is more volume in the purchase of goods and services, and higher levels of employment (because we need people to make those goods and services).



Middle class tax adjustments have very little affect on tax revenue, as do adjustments on the poor.

Our country is fuled on commerce.  If we choose to hurt the people who engage in the commerce we will very quickly hurt everyone.

So it is actually the terminology you have wrong.  You have the right idea, but if you want to raise revenue you must decrease taxes on the wealthy.  This causes everyone to make more money and therefore contribute more to income taxes and fund the government.

Rich, Poor, we are all linked by the same thread.



No matter who you increase taxes on, you hurt revenue, but when you reduce taxes you have the most profound effect on everyone when you reduce rates on the those who control the corporations and build the economy  i.e. the wealthy.

I know it dosent sound fair, and it's not what some people want to hear, but it is a fact.  

Unfortunatly we will be doomed to learn it over and over again because we live in a country where it is taboo to teach young people that being successfull, and/or wealthy is a good thing.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Following that logic in Tulsa, any family that makes more than $70,000 a year should give 100% of their income to the government.  Certainly a family can live comfortably on $70,000 and the rest is just excess for unneeded luxury items.  The logical conclusion follows that not just 4%, but all excess should be taken and given to families that earn less than $70,000 a year until all families earn equal.

The very notion WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY? is the most detestable defense of a government taking someones wealth I have ever heard.  How about the fact that the wealth BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.  The government is taking their wealth.  In this instance, they are taking it and giving it to others simply because they can.  They should not do so because the wealth is private and does not belong to the government.

And I am still waiting for a defense of the practice...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Taxation based on consumption is the fairest way to close the loopholes that only the select are able to exploit.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Taxation based on consumption is the fairest way to close the loopholes that only the select are able to exploit.

Agreed. But I sure like my mortgage interest deduction...

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.

I think he's got the message just fine.

If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they?  How are the rich being harmed by this?  Where's the hardship?

1.  Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.

2.  Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.

Following that logic in Tulsa, any family that makes more than $70,000 a year should give 100% of their income to the government.  Certainly a family can live comfortably on $70,000 and the rest is just excess for unneeded luxury items.  The logical conclusion follows that not just 4%, but all excess should be taken and given to families that earn less than $70,000 a year until all families earn equal.

The very notion WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY? is the most detestable defense of a government taking someones wealth I have ever heard.  How about the fact that the wealth BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.  The government is taking their wealth.  In this instance, they are taking it and giving it to others simply because they can.  They should not do so because the wealth is private and does not belong to the government.

And I am still waiting for a defense of the practice...

I think you have touched on the real issue, which is that the "tax the crap out of the rich" people believe that government's purpose is to create a balance between the rich and poor under some amorphous definition of "fairness" and not perform the very limited services it is constitutionally authorized to provide.