Life isn't fair...

Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Life isn't fair...

Life isn't fair is frequently the argument I hear against social programs and other systems set up to help the less fortunate. People argue that they worked for what they had (even if they just inherited it or were very lucky) and if you point out that some people don't have the advantages they did, say a person is disabled or didn't have as much money, the usual response seems to be "Well life isn't fair." The problem that I have with this is that it seems to be a cop out, a way to ignore the problem by simply saying "Well the world isn't fair so why should we try to fix things?" I mean we don't tell a person who was robbed, "Life isn't fair, get better locks next time."  or say to victims of assault that life isn't fair, in fact we have systems in place to defend them, to defend all of us in the event someone being harmed by another person so that the problem can be dealt with. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, if anyone cares to offer a counter I would appreciate it.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:Maybe I'm

Joker wrote:

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, if anyone cares to offer a counter I would appreciate it.

I think it's rather tactless to walk up to someone who has ever experienced such things and say, "Life isn't fair."

But I think I would affirm by general observation that indeed, "life isn't fair" -- that is if what one means by fair is that not everyone endures the same experiences good, bad, or indifferent. But this does not mean that we cannot attempt in some way to pursue social justice to make things better for the disenfranchised. That is reaching out to those who are in need and do not necessarily have the means to help themselves.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 Fairness is an Ideal.  A

 Fairness is an ideal.  A idea about how the world should be.  The world doesn't conform to our ideals, but that doesn't mean the ideals themselves are useless.  


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I use the "life isn't

 I use the "life isn't fair" line from time to time usually when someone is pointing out some persons horrible situation as an argument that the government should do something about it and they are being particularly dense. Basically, it is my way of ending the conversation when I am talking to someone who thinks the government is the answer to all the injustices in the world and they don't understand the government isn't the all powerful answer to everything. We all experience different situations in our lives and respond in different ways it is foolish to expect us all to experience the same results, it is dangerous to think the government should enforce same results. I wouldn't use it to someone talking about their own horrible problem unless they were being particularly whiny about it.

 

Although, I saw a cemetery yesterday with a big sign that said "EQUALITY", a little reminder that in the end life is perfectly fair, none of us will get out alive. 

 


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Life isn't fair. That is

Life isn't fair. That is true for the disabled in my eye's, however life is also a game of chance. Anyone of us could be in a horrible traffic accident today, we could lose the use of our entire body's. I'm sure this would bring you to the conclusion that life was not fair to you.

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

Life is a game of chance. When you have a child there is a "chance" that they will be born with problems. This doesn't mean that all should stop having children. Just understand that life is a game of chance, and sometimes it seems unfair.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote: Fairness is an

RatDog wrote:
Fairness is an ideal. A idea about how the world should be. The world doesn't conform to our ideals, but that doesn't mean the ideals themselves are useless.

 

I would tend to agree with that. At least on the level of a general principal. However, that is a bit circular in some sense.

 

However, what does it mean to say that life is not fair? Sure, some people were lucky enough to grow up the child of a skilled middle class worker and they may be able to go to the college of their choice without outside money to pay for it.

 

If someone is in that situation and saying that life is not fair, well boo fucking hoo. Just because daddy is a doctor and you can be a lawyer on your own resources does not mean that someone whose daddy was a carpenter should be screwed out of an education.

 

In fact, decades before there was a big deal about people on welfare, there were programs in place to see that those who wanted a full education could have it even if they could not afford it on their own. The eventual payback to the economy in general of having more fully educated people in society is far larger than the investment to give some people a shot at the big time. I think that most people grasp that much and are OK with it.

 

The thing is that the whole “life is not fair” thing is really directed at those programs that are cool to hate on, such as welfare and medicade. Now to some extent, there really are a tiny minority of people who are not able to fully contribute to society economically, at least to the extent that most people can. For those people, it may be that we can find a way to help them out.

 

However, there is a huge inconsistency coming from the children of doctors and lawyers in regards to other programs such as social security. Briefly, SSD was originally targeted at those who were at the end of their productive days and would only be on the dole for a year or two before they died.

 

Today, the very people who least of us need that particular handout like to pull the “It is mine, I paid for it all my life and it I want it for the last 20+ years of my life, because it is owed to me” deal. The way that the old laws were written, yah, that it actually true. However, the same people piss and moan when it come to helping out someone who can't hold it together for five minutes and thus can't make it through a job interview.

 

Granted too though, there have been in the past a heavy abuse of government handouts and that meant higher taxes for everyone who was producing their fair share. When the abuses are active in the system, that pretty much means that the abusers have little incentive to get off their collective asses and do a job to pay into the system. This was true when President Lincoln said it and it will always be true:

 

Abraham Lincoln wrote:
Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anecdotally, the people who

Anecdotally, the people who say life isn't fair are usually the people to whom life has been more than fair.

I don't want to get into a giant debate about social policy, but when you have obvious problems that are not being solved by charity, businesses or individual people 'pulling themselves up by the bootstraps' I'm not sure what tools we are supposed to use for solutions outside of the government.  To me, simply looking at suffering and saying life isn't fair so get over it is just an enormous denial of responsibility.

I guess the thing most confusing to me is, as atheists, most of us are materialists who tend to believe in determinism of some sort.  In that case, shouldn't we be trying to adjust the inputs into people's lives to generate better outcomes?  It is pretty trivial to show emperically that when you leave poor and miserable people alone to be poor and miserable the vast majority stay poor and miserable.  People tend to think people just need to help themselves, but how is that possible when, say, 90% of a socia-economic group (rich or poor) simply perpetuate themselves without any outside influence?

 

I know that 'I' am 'Lucky'.  I was born to a stable, white, middle class family.  That meant I had a good statistical chance of growing up to be a stable, middle class person.  If I had been born to a crack whore and a pimp, chances are I'd be stuck in that group.  But we don't have to let those cycles go on forever, we have plenty of examples that show proper investment can break the chain and produce a new generation that gradually turns into a stable, productive group.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
@OP

Ordinarily I would have a lot to say on this topic - but today, I would just sound like a whiny baby.

It is Sept 1, 2010.  I am still unemployed.  I have never been unemployed this long before unless it was my desire to be so.  I had thought that I would be employed long before Sept 1, 2009.  I'm going to go fill out more job applications and try not to whine about life being not fair.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Beyond

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

So you don't have a problem with the top 1% of americans having more than the bottom 95%?

You think that this system works! We wouldn't have the poverty problem we have today if not for REPUBLICAN views like that!!!!

Life may seem to be unfair, but government is unfair!!!

Taxes should be flat accross the board fucking period.....

Your George W. fucked up views are what got us in this mess in the first place....

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

So you don't have a problem with the top 1% of americans having more than the bottom 95%?

You think that this system works! We wouldn't have the poverty problem we have today if not for REPUBLICAN views like that!!!!

Life may seem to be unfair, but government is unfair!!!

Taxes should be flat accross the board fucking period.....

Your George W. fucked up views are what got us in this mess in the first place....

I'm not sure how to respond.  Did you quote me by mistake?  Nothing you wrote seems applicable to what I said.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

So you don't have a problem with the top 1% of americans having more than the bottom 95%?

You think that this system works! We wouldn't have the poverty problem we have today if not for REPUBLICAN views like that!!!!

Life may seem to be unfair, but government is unfair!!!

Taxes should be flat accross the board fucking period.....

Your George W. fucked up views are what got us in this mess in the first place....

I'm not sure how to respond.  Did you quote me by mistake?  Nothing you wrote seems applicable to what I said.

No I did not quote you by mistake, did you not say that you didnt have a problem with the top 1% holding on to their money while the rest of Americans pay taxes. Example"I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place."

The problem is that it's not put back into system or they wouldn't have all the damn money!!!

Think about what your saying: They should not have to pay the same taxes as you and I. Because they have all the money! WTF sense does that make to rationally minded person.

They should in fact pay more of a percent than us do to the "Reagan" years that we are still suffering from...

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

So you don't have a problem with the top 1% of americans having more than the bottom 95%?

You think that this system works! We wouldn't have the poverty problem we have today if not for REPUBLICAN views like that!!!!

Life may seem to be unfair, but government is unfair!!!

Taxes should be flat accross the board fucking period.....

Your George W. fucked up views are what got us in this mess in the first place....

I'm not sure how to respond.  Did you quote me by mistake?  Nothing you wrote seems applicable to what I said.

No I did not quote you by mistake, did you not say that you didnt have a problem with the top 1% holding on to their money while the rest of Americans pay taxes. Example"I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place."

The problem is that it's not put back into system or they wouldn't have all the damn money!!!

Think about what your saying: They should not have to pay the same taxes as you and I. Because they have all the money! WTF sense does that make to rationally minded person.

They should in fact pay more of a percent than us do to the "Reagan" years that we are still suffering from...

A graduated income tax means the percentage you are taxed rises with your income.  Here are the current U.S. tax brackets.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2010_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

 

So I'm not sure what you mean.  I think maybe you just misunderstood me?  What I said is that I don't have a problem paying a higher tax rate the more money I make.  I've moved up the tax brackets over the years and I don't have any problem with that.  I see it as a justified responsibility.

 

The larger argument is a lot more complex than just income tax policy though.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

So you don't have a problem with the top 1% of americans having more than the bottom 95%?

You think that this system works! We wouldn't have the poverty problem we have today if not for REPUBLICAN views like that!!!!

Life may seem to be unfair, but government is unfair!!!

Taxes should be flat accross the board fucking period.....

Your George W. fucked up views are what got us in this mess in the first place....

I'm not sure how to respond.  Did you quote me by mistake?  Nothing you wrote seems applicable to what I said.

No I did not quote you by mistake, did you not say that you didnt have a problem with the top 1% holding on to their money while the rest of Americans pay taxes. Example"I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place."

The problem is that it's not put back into system or they wouldn't have all the damn money!!!

Think about what your saying: They should not have to pay the same taxes as you and I. Because they have all the money! WTF sense does that make to rationally minded person.

They should in fact pay more of a percent than us do to the "Reagan" years that we are still suffering from...

A graduated income tax means the percentage you are taxed rises with your income.  Here are the current U.S. tax brackets.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2010_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

 

So I'm not sure what you mean.  I think maybe you just misunderstood me?  What I said is that I don't have a problem paying a higher tax rate the more money I make.  I've moved up the tax brackets over the years and I don't have any problem with that.  I see it as a justified responsibility.

 

The larger argument is a lot more complex than just income tax policy though.

Well maybe I did misunderstand that part. Then your saying that the more you make the more the government puts back into the system. yes

I was under the impression that you were saying that they should keep the money and reinvest it into there own businesses.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
I got a little bent on that

I got a little bent on that one and I was apparently misunderstanding the position. Apologies


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I definitely support a

I definitely support a progressive tax in the sense that people who have so much more resources should give some away to help others. But, at the same time, I don't like the idea that people who earn more are essentially forced to give more. I guess there isn't really a choice; most people aren't generous enough to donate so much of their money voluntarily. I also don't like the fact that the money goes to the government, who wastes so much of it and puts so much of the rest in things like war.

Maybe this is an ignorant thought, but I think it would be kind of nice if we had a flat tax, but then made those with higher incomes donate to something specific that helps others. So, the extra money that they would have given to the government in a moderately progressive income tax goes directly to homeless shelters or scientific research instead.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Beyond

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

 

I think Jimmy might be correct if we are talking not just about Federal taxes, but about FICA taxes.  Above the social security wage base (SSWB), you do not pay social security taxes.  I would like to see if removing SSWB would resolve the social security crisis of near future.  Although such reform would increase taxes ONLY on those households making more than $108K, I can easily imagine an outcry about unfairness of this approach.  Smiling

... and millions of people will join to protest new outrageous government policies.... wait a minute, how many of protesters make more than $108K?  umm...

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm with Butter. Many of

 I'm with Butter. Many of the wealthy do willingly donate massive amounts of money to various charities. Charitable giving drops off dramatically when you reach areas where the government puts a lot of money because people use the logic of "well I already pay taxes for that". I would go for eliminating the income tax entirely and use a consumption tax so you only pay taxes on what you buy but that will never happen so I will settle for a flat tax. 

 

So Jimmy, I'll say it for you, the rich should keep more of their money so they can invest it in their businesses and charity. If I pay 25% in taxes so should Bill Gates and so should the person making 5k. (25% of 1 million is way more than 25% of 50k so he is still paying way more) No deductions, no credits, no exceptions. Capital gains should be at the same rate as income too when they are realized. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:I got

jimmy.williamson wrote:

I got a little bent on that one and I was apparently misunderstanding the position. Apologies

No problem.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

However fair is just another way of saying "equal". I think. Now as for our government ["enforce same results"] I agree, but don't you think the government could at least level the playing field. I mean the top 1% for the US hold as much money as the bottom 95%. and they pay less taxes.

Now I'm not saying that the government should go to their homes and take all their belongings and give them to the poor, but let's tax them as equal as the middle income is taxed.

 

I agree, the tax system is ridiculously unfair. Everyone should pay x% in taxes whether they make $1 or a trillion whether it is given to them as cash or as a benefit, no exemptions no exceptions. And we should ditch the property tax system entirely but I could do a whole thread on that.  

I don't actually have a problem with a graduated income tax...it makes sense to me that as you are more successful you put more of your resources back into the system that let you grow successful in the first place.  And I say that as a person who is not on the bottom rung of the tax ladder, and as a person who has never had to take unemployment, food stamps or welfare.  Abuse of social services bugs me as much as the next person, but I don't mind paying for them.

 

I think Jimmy might be correct if we are talking not just about Federal taxes, but about FICA taxes.  Above the social security wage base (SSWB), you do not pay social security taxes.  I would like to see if removing SSWB would resolve the social security crisis of near future.  Although such reform would increase taxes ONLY on those households making more than $108K, I can easily imagine an outcry about unfairness of this approach.  Smiling

... and millions of people will join to protest new outrageous government policies.... wait a minute, how many of protesters make more than $108K?  umm...

 

 

 

Yea, like I said above, the issues are a lot more complex than just how you treat income tax.

And the devil is always in the details.  A lot of people talk about going to a flat income tax, or a flat sales tax, or simplifying the system drastically...I dunno.  I'm not an economist, but I have my doubts that if we wave a magic tax wand it will fix everything.  A lot of the proposals are so simplistic they seem naive...or too good to be true.  But maybe I'm too jaded, maybe it would be that easy.  But I doubt it.

I think I'd prefer to keep the current system and gradually reform it, eliminating loopholes, removing unneeded programs and incentives, adding new incentives and adjusting rates and brackets as we go along, simplifying things when they make sense and adding rules when it makes sense.  But that is the way I am about most things...I'm fine with most current government programs (in theory), I just wish we could see a methodical science based approach to how we adjust them rather than the purely political way we do it now.

The last sentence above probably sums up my political stance in a nutshell.  I've yet to see a party that holds that as a core value...not even the smaller parties seem to be interested in an evidence based approach to government, they just want to put their own systems in place with the same dogmatic zeal that the larger parties employ.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'm with Butter. Many of the wealthy do willingly donate massive amounts of money to various charities. Charitable giving drops off dramatically when you reach areas where the government puts a lot of money because people use the logic of "well I already pay taxes for that". I would go for eliminating the income tax entirely and use a consumption tax so you only pay taxes on what you buy but that will never happen so I will settle for a flat tax. 

 

So Jimmy, I'll say it for you, the rich should keep more of their money so they can invest it in their businesses and charity. If I pay 25% in taxes so should Bill Gates and so should the person making 5k. (25% of 1 million is way more than 25% of 50k so he is still paying way more) No deductions, no credits, no exceptions. Capital gains should be at the same rate as income too when they are realized. 

And if they decide not to invest it but bank it offshore, what then? It's not helping anyone.

It sounds like the problem with "trickle-down" economics. Much of the time it didn't trickle because it was stashed.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And if they

jcgadfly wrote:

And if they decide not to invest it but bank it offshore, what then? It's not helping anyone.

It sounds like the problem with "trickle-down" economics. Much of the time it didn't trickle because it was stashed.

You mean like they do now to avoid taxes? Millionaires don't "stash" most of their wealth (except drug dealers) they invest it to make more money. They will invest where they believe they will make the largest profit with what they believe to be an acceptable amount of risk. Sometimes it will be overseas.....so what. We live a comfortable life today because much of what we consume was built overseas dirt cheap because of those evil rich people investing in production. We benefit a lot from American investments overseas. Look at your possessions, I'm willing to bet a good bit of what you own was made overseas.  

 

Your argument about trickle down economics has no evidence. There certainly was no shortage of investment money available in the late 80's and early 90's. That is why credit cards became so common and we got drunk on borrowing and spending creating the hangover we are suffering now.   


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And if they decide not to invest it but bank it offshore, what then? It's not helping anyone.

It sounds like the problem with "trickle-down" economics. Much of the time it didn't trickle because it was stashed.

You mean like they do now to avoid taxes? Millionaires don't "stash" most of their wealth (except drug dealers) they invest it to make more money. They will invest where they believe they will make the largest profit with what they believe to be an acceptable amount of risk. Sometimes it will be overseas.....so what. We live a comfortable life today because much of what we consume was built overseas dirt cheap because of those evil rich people investing in production. We benefit a lot from American investments overseas. Look at your possessions, I'm willing to bet a good bit of what you own was made overseas.  

 

Your argument about trickle down economics has no evidence. There certainly was no shortage of investment money available in the late 80's and early 90's. That is why credit cards became so common and we got drunk on borrowing and spending creating the hangover we are suffering now.   

There was no shortage of investment money in the 80's and 90's - it was just in the hands of people who didn't give a damn about investing. Funny how most of them never took any economic damage from it.

Please note I wasn't talking about overseas investments - just stashing it in banks to avoid the taxes they barely pay to begin with (because of loopholes, credits, etc. you mentioned). And yes, probably a good bit of what I own and use was made overseas because they found it easier to screw people in poorer economies making crap than to put together decent products here.

Then, if they're not making quite as much profit as they want, they go to the government and ask for bailouts.

Risk is always more acceptable when you're not using your own money. If the uber-wealthy actually had to put up their own money, I don't think anyone would be investing, period.

Evil, no. Unethical, perhaps. Unwilling to invest in improving things in their home country so they can screw over other countries, you bet your ass.

Unless you are already one of the uber-rich, give up any hope of joining them on hard work alone.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Please note I

jcgadfly wrote:

Please note I wasn't talking about overseas investments - just stashing it in banks to avoid the taxes they barely pay to begin with (because of loopholes, credits, etc. you mentioned). And yes, probably a good bit of what I own and use was made overseas because they found it easier to screw people in poorer economies making crap than to put together decent products here.

Then, if they're not making quite as much profit as they want, they go to the government and ask for bailouts.

Risk is always more acceptable when you're not using your own money. If the uber-wealthy actually had to put up their own money, I don't think anyone would be investing, period.

Evil, no. Unethical, perhaps. Unwilling to invest in improving things in their home country so they can screw over other countries, you bet your ass.

Unless you are already one of the uber-rich, give up any hope of joining them on hard work alone.

 

Willingness to take risk with tax payer money is the root of our current problems. The tax code has been the tool used by politicians to pay off buddies until recently G W decided to start the bailouts and Bama and Co. has been all over the idea. When you are gambling with taxpayer money you don't care if you succeed because you don't suffer the loss. Ditch the current tax code, stop ALL bailouts and put in something that is simple and fair and you fix a lot of the problems. People will still evade taxes but it would be much harder if the average layman could take a calculator and determine how much you owe. Right now rich people evade taxes in plain sight by hiring good lawyers. When they make bad investments let them go bankrupt, there is no such thing as "too big to fail" 

 

I will never be uber-rich in any society because I am lazy. I would quit my job and spend my money long before I got to that point. So no hopes here. 

 


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Agreed and that was my

Agreed and that was my point, if the rich can find loop hole to avoid paying taxes. We are again picking up the bill.
Make no mistake I am for big government when it comes to welfare, and medical insurance. I feel that if there was a flat rate tax on all (that was unavoidable) with no loop holes. There would be more than enough to go around. On the other hand the people that rape the system should be punished.
Here's my idea: If you are on un employment you should have to meet up at the unemployment office every morning with your work cloths on. Use those people to clean up our streets and build our roads. Pay them yes, and work them. Office personal can be put to work in our way under staffed DMVs etc..
Now if you worked all the people that are receiving unemployment at once it would be a nightmare, however it would weed out the under the table rapist of the system.
This my welfare reform!
Tax the rich, work and pay the poor

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:
Agreed and that was my point, if the rich can find loop hole to avoid paying taxes. We are again picking up the bill. Make no mistake I am for big government when it comes to welfare, and medical insurance. I feel that if there was a flat rate tax on all (that was unavoidable) with no loop holes. There would be more than enough to go around. On the other hand the people that rape the system should be punished. Here's my idea: If you are on un employment you should have to meet up at the unemployment office every morning with your work cloths on. Use those people to clean up our streets and build our roads. Pay them yes, and work them. Office personal can be put to work in our way under staffed DMVs etc.. Now if you worked all the people that are receiving unemployment at once it would be a nightmare, however it would weed out the under the table rapist of the system. This my welfare reform! Tax the rich, work and pay the poor

 

This is the way German Autobahns were built. 

"Upon assuming power in January 1933, Adolf Hitler enthusiastically embraced an ambitious autobahn construction project as part of his program of public works to help fulfill his promise to reduce unemployment. On 27 June 1933, the Reich government (Reichsregierung) enacted the "Law on the Establishment of a 'Reichsautobahn' Enterprise" (Gesetz über die Errichtung eines Unternehmens "Reichsautobahnen&quotEye-wink.[2] In accordance with Section 5 of this law, Hitler appointedFritz Todt as Inspector General of German Roads (Generalinspektor für das deutsche Straßenwesen). Soon, over 100,000 laborers worked at construction sites all over Germany. "


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:
Agreed and that was my point, if the rich can find loop hole to avoid paying taxes. We are again picking up the bill. Make no mistake I am for big government when it comes to welfare, and medical insurance. I feel that if there was a flat rate tax on all (that was unavoidable) with no loop holes. There would be more than enough to go around. On the other hand the people that rape the system should be punished. Here's my idea: If you are on un employment you should have to meet up at the unemployment office every morning with your work cloths on. Use those people to clean up our streets and build our roads. Pay them yes, and work them. Office personal can be put to work in our way under staffed DMVs etc.. Now if you worked all the people that are receiving unemployment at once it would be a nightmare, however it would weed out the under the table rapist of the system. This my welfare reform! Tax the rich, work and pay the poor

 

I just spent two hours waiting at DMV for a transaction that took 30 seconds once we were at the window.  I would cheerfully work there, but the state of Oregon is hiring darn few people as they are out of money themselves.  Also, I'm way over qualified - but it would still be a job and I would do the work.

If they hired me would it be a loss or gain for the state?  Would they pay me more than I am getting on unemployment?  Most probably and so it would be a net loss for the state coffers.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
I know that the idea is not

I know that the idea is not met with open arms, and it does sound a litle like the Hitler thing, but that doesn't make me a communist.
I just feel that people should work for the services.
Here's another one that will probably seen it overboard.
I think that we need to have a form of mandatory military service. A class in high school maybe that focuses on the functions of our military. Now I'm not saying basic training style but rather ROTC style. It would encourage more of our youth to join.
This is viewed as communist by most, however I feel this education is important to our future.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:I

jimmy.williamson wrote:
I know that the idea is not met with open arms, and it does sound a litle like the Hitler thing, but that doesn't make me a communist. I just feel that people should work for the services. Here's another one that will probably seen it overboard. I think that we need to have a form of mandatory military service. A class in high school maybe that focuses on the functions of our military. Now I'm not saying basic training style but rather ROTC style. It would encourage more of our youth to join. This is viewed as communist by most, however I feel this education is important to our future.

If we keep them from dying in needless wars, I could like that idea.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
The point is education being

The point is education being the key to our future. I don't believe that by educating our youth would increase wars, rather find ways around them.
Big government is always looked at as evil,especially in the south. Now let a hurricane, or BP fuck some shit up and everyone is crying that big government come save them. How ironic! Right!
So vote against the big ideas in politics and don't ask for help!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Oh my, I caused a rather

Oh my, I caused a rather large discussion. I am admittedly in favor of government intervention. I believe in things like welfare, I wanted a single payer healthcare system, and I am for progressive taxation. In part because we saw some of our greatest economic growth during a time of high taxes on the rich. I could get into some of my issues with what Reagan did, and that some economists have argued that Americans have functionally been undertaxed since Reagan took office but that's a different topic. I do notice the interesting perspective that a poor person has to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps but a rich corporation having to pay for their own mess being called a 'shakedown' and this is non partisan, I tend to vote Democrat and I saw enough of them defending BP to make me want to hurl.

I would add that the discussion I've read so far has been quite interesting though.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:The

jimmy.williamson wrote:
The point is education being the key to our future. I don't believe that by educating our youth would increase wars, rather find ways around them. Big government is always looked at as evil,especially in the south. Now let a hurricane, or BP fuck some shit up and everyone is crying that big government come save them. How ironic! Right! So vote against the big ideas in politics and don't ask for help!

My Libertarian tendencies don't like big gonvernment.....

My only apprehension is when big business has no oversight, things like oil spills can go without any recompense, which would requires big government.... You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
I think the ultimate thing

I think the ultimate thing is this, in any system there will be power imbalances. No oversight of business leads to oil spills that aren't cleaned up or situations as detailed in The Jungle. Not to mention the fact that plenty of people are in need and shouldn't have to depend on charity when they were born disabled or in poverty. I don't like everything that comes with a larger government to help the less fortunate but I worry more about unrestrained capitalism. You can't stop market forces from colluding and even in an anarchy groups might form to cause pain and panic to others. I'm more social-democrat than anything else, but I also recognize that there is a point where the government will foul things up. I have also seen times where privatization leads to problems or in fact less efficiency. Capitalism isn't a panacea, plenty of problems are going to a case of being expensive and not profitable in a financial sense but can allow for great things. I doubt the space program would have been done as a private affair, nor do I think that private citizens should have the right to own a personal nuke.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:
The point is education being the key to our future. I don't believe that by educating our youth would increase wars, rather find ways around them. Big government is always looked at as evil,especially in the south. Now let a hurricane, or BP fuck some shit up and everyone is crying that big government come save them. How ironic! Right! So vote against the big ideas in politics and don't ask for help!

My Libertarian tendencies don't like big gonvernment.....

My only apprehension is when big business has no oversight, things like oil spills can go without any recompense, which would requires big government.... You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I hope that one day we will have the resources that Americans deserve. Such as universal health care, and a functional unemployment system.

Here is another one of my great ideas: Let's put a flat tax on gas that will go into a fund for accidents.

Here's how it works. Say that the tax is 50 cents on the gallon. If you drive a Hummer that gets 5 mile to the gallon, you will pay more into the system then say a Honda Accord. This will even out since the Hummer would do more damage in a accident that the Accord.

Also the little old lady that only drives to the store once a week will pay less, as she is on the roads less.

Conclusion: No one would have to purchase insurance form State Farm ETC... And all vehicles on the road would have insurance. NO MORE UNINSURED MOTORIST...

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:I

jimmy.williamson wrote:

I hope that one day we will have the resources that Americans deserve. Such as universal health care, and a functional unemployment system.

You'd probably guess that by me being Libterian, me no likey the idea of universal health care. And to me a functional unemployment system is a non-existent unemployment system.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

I hope that one day we will have the resources that Americans deserve. Such as universal health care, and a functional unemployment system.

You'd probably guess that by me being Libterian, me no likey the idea of universal health care. And to me a functional unemployment system is a non-existent unemployment system.

As I stated earlier I think people should work for their benefits. That would mean that it would not be unemployment, but rather open jobs for everyone now on unemployment.

Understand that I am not against people that are on unemployment. I know that it is at times peoples only way to stay out of the poor house, or homeless. So if anyone has read my statements and felt like I was condemning you, please don't!

Here is another rant that I have with welfare: If you are on welfare you should have to get a birth control shot for the women. I know this is a violation of some type of rights, however it is my position that if your on welfare, and can not feed yourself you have no business bringing another mouth to the table! I know that I am starting to sound like the guy at the discovery Chanel. Sorry for that. Believe me I'm not that radical.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

I hope that one day we will have the resources that Americans deserve. Such as universal health care, and a functional unemployment system.

You'd probably guess that by me being Libterian, me no likey the idea of universal health care. And to me a functional unemployment system is a non-existent unemployment system.

 

That's because you can afford health care and/or you aren't suffering from chronic health problems.  That may change and then you may decide to change your mind on universal health care as well.  Roughly 2/3 of all bankruptcies in the US are due to health care costs - and many of these people have private health insurance.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:As I

jimmy.williamson wrote:


As I stated earlier I think people should work for their benefits. That would mean that it would not be unemployment, but rather open jobs for everyone now on unemployment.

Understand that I am not against people that are on unemployment. I know that it is at times peoples only way to stay out of the poor house, or homeless. So if anyone has read my statements and felt like I was condemning you, please don't!

Here is another rant that I have with welfare: If you are on welfare you should have to get a birth control shot for the women. I know this is a violation of some type of rights, however it is my position that if your on welfare, and can not feed yourself you have no business bringing another mouth to the table! I know that I am starting to sound like the guy at the discovery Chanel. Sorry for that. Believe me I'm not that radical.

 

Yeah, I figured you weren't slamming me.

As for welfare, most of the people I know on welfare are single middle aged women post-menopausal.  But that is also my demographic - except I'm not on welfare - yet - so it makes sense that I don't know any young ones.  So giving me a birth control shot would be a waste of money.  You want to add that into your solution - birth control shots only for those who are fertile.  So as not to waste them as well on younger women who have had their tubes tied or had a hysterectomy or are otherwise sterile.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ubuntuAnyone

cj wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

I hope that one day we will have the resources that Americans deserve. Such as universal health care, and a functional unemployment system.

You'd probably guess that by me being Libterian, me no likey the idea of universal health care. And to me a functional unemployment system is a non-existent unemployment system.

 

That's because you can afford health care and/or you aren't suffering from chronic health problems.  That may change and then you may decide to change your mind on universal health care as well.  Roughly 2/3 of all bankruptcies in the US are due to health care costs - and many of these people have private health insurance.

Agreed Cj I am on the edge right now of filing, and I have insurance...

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:
The point is education being the key to our future. I don't believe that by educating our youth would increase wars, rather find ways around them. Big government is always looked at as evil,especially in the south. Now let a hurricane, or BP fuck some shit up and everyone is crying that big government come save them. How ironic! Right! So vote against the big ideas in politics and don't ask for help!

My Libertarian tendencies don't like big gonvernment.....

My only apprehension is when big business has no oversight, things like oil spills can go without any recompense, which would requires big government.... You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I hope that one day we will have the resources that Americans deserve. Such as universal health care, and a functional unemployment system.

Here is another one of my great ideas: Let's put a flat tax on gas that will go into a fund for accidents.

Here's how it works. Say that the tax is 50 cents on the gallon. If you drive a Hummer that gets 5 mile to the gallon, you will pay more into the system then say a Honda Accord. This will even out since the Hummer would do more damage in a accident that the Accord.

Also the little old lady that only drives to the store once a week will pay less, as she is on the roads less.

Conclusion: No one would have to purchase insurance form State Farm ETC... And all vehicles on the road would have insurance. NO MORE UNINSURED MOTORIST...

See, the problem is you've said two things.  One, you would like to tax everyone equally.  Two, that you would like specific taxation to discourage or encourage behavior, or at least punish specific behavior.

Both of those ideas are fine, but they can't logically live in the same political space.  One is about a passive, 'fair' tax system (libertarian), the other is about an active, 'unfair' tax system (non-libertarian) that uses taxation to influence citizen behavior.

So somehow you need to rationalize those two things.  Either get rid of the second part, or moderate on the first part so you have some wiggle room to make the latter things in your domestic policy platform.

I'm not criticizing you, so don't yell at me.   All I'm saying is the reason our current tax code is so complex is because we've used it in the manner you have suggested, by adding incentives for some things and punishments for others. 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Now I don't think that

Now I don't think that either of these ideas are un fair. There just thoughts. I realize that the chances of either of them making through legislation and passed would never happen. If they did they would be filled with so much red tape that the original idea would be watered down.
The fact remains that the incentives that the rich use to get out of paying taxes need to go. If the tax system worked then they wouldn't have all the money!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:Now I

jimmy.williamson wrote:
Now I don't think that either of these ideas are un fair. There just thoughts. I realize that the chances of either of them making through legislation and passed would never happen. If they did they would be filled with so much red tape that the original idea would be watered down. The fact remains that the incentives that the rich use to get out of paying taxes need to go. If the tax system worked then they wouldn't have all the money!

I'm sorry, I need to be a lot more clear with my terminology.

I don't mean unfair like, 'wrong' I mean that one operates on a system where everything is the same and the other concept operates on a system where things will change based on what you want to tax and when.

Maybe a better way to state it is that one system is passive and the other is dynamic.  The first system is a very libertarian concept, the second system is something most libertarians would frown on.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:
Now I don't think that either of these ideas are un fair. There just thoughts. I realize that the chances of either of them making through legislation and passed would never happen. If they did they would be filled with so much red tape that the original idea would be watered down. The fact remains that the incentives that the rich use to get out of paying taxes need to go. If the tax system worked then they wouldn't have all the money!

I'm sorry, I need to be a lot more clear with my terminology.

I don't mean unfair like, 'wrong' I mean that one operates on a system where everything is the same and the other concept operates on a system where things will change based on what you want to tax and when.

Maybe a better way to state it is that one system is passive and the other is dynamic.  The first system is a very libertarian concept, the second system is something most libertarians would frown on.

I understand your position. I do its just my idea of equal and yours differs a little. In an equal tax across the board you would have to do away with the loop holes that the rich are using to get out of paying their taxes. Now that could be done without changing the existing graduated income tax. If that make my statement seem more equal in your eyes.

Point is again it is the loop holes that allow the rich to take all the money. leaving the poor to fight over the craps...

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:
Now I don't think that either of these ideas are un fair. There just thoughts. I realize that the chances of either of them making through legislation and passed would never happen. If they did they would be filled with so much red tape that the original idea would be watered down. The fact remains that the incentives that the rich use to get out of paying taxes need to go. If the tax system worked then they wouldn't have all the money!

I'm sorry, I need to be a lot more clear with my terminology.

I don't mean unfair like, 'wrong' I mean that one operates on a system where everything is the same and the other concept operates on a system where things will change based on what you want to tax and when.

Maybe a better way to state it is that one system is passive and the other is dynamic.  The first system is a very libertarian concept, the second system is something most libertarians would frown on.

I understand your position. I do its just my idea of equal and yours differs a little. In an equal tax across the board you would have to do away with the loop holes that the rich are using to get out of paying their taxes. Now that could be done without changing the existing graduated income tax. If that make my statement seem more equal in your eyes.

Point is again it is the loop holes that allow the rich to take all the money. leaving the poor to fight over the craps...

Removing loopholes from a graduated income tax while retaining some level of incentives and penalties is ideologically consistent.

So I'm cool.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
I hope ou are getting my

I hope ou are getting my point thing aren't fair. I will compile some of my ideas and turn it into a new post. As if anyone would care, I just want some impute.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:That's because you

cj wrote:

That's because you can afford health care and/or you aren't suffering from chronic health problems.  That may change and then you may decide to change your mind on universal health care as well.  Roughly 2/3 of all bankruptcies in the US are due to health care costs - and many of these people have private health insurance.

This tells me 1 or 2 things: the health insurance is broken or healthcare costs to much--that is it's overinflated. I've read stories and reports were people are able to travel to other countries (Mexico, for instance) and receive the same healthcare for less than it would cost to buy that healthcare in the United States: that is, the cost of travel + the healthcare

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”