For the socialist on this board who want to tax the rich

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Retaliation? I'd just purchase an army to protect me.

Sorry dude, I am not interested in going back to the stone ages.

You could purchase said army.. What's stopping you?

[mawilson 2,133]

Tell that to 46.9 per cent of Americans who have no (or negative) income tax liability.

Shouldn't they pay their "fair share" to be part of society?

Tell what to them? The point of contention is whether tax is theft. It's not.

Tell them they should start paying income taxes if they want to be part of society.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's really something that you deem collecting tax for the greater good of your nation and fellow Americans as theft, yet consider individuals amassing ridiculous amounts of money for their own gain as progress.

You seem to think that individuals amassing billions in assets somehow do it at the expense

of the poor who struggle on a few cents a day. Their wealth may or may not trickle down

to the poor, but the nation's collective wealth makes even poor people better off than

they otherwise would be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Tell them they should start paying income taxes if they want to be part of society.

No, that's not a road I'm going to go down. It's a silly place. Like Camelot.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No, that's not a road I'm going to go down. It's a silly place. Like Camelot.

you already did go down that road though..... now you refuse to back it up?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so if the government says that being a part of society means you have to rape a woman (or a man), then i suppose that's acceptable to you too?

'part of society' is something people choose not to be a part of all the time. Sure they may pay their taxes to be left alone, but they don't partake in society in any way, shape, or form. There are also people who live in this country 'off radar' and use false identities to be left alone as well.

That's just meaningless hyperbole for the sake of being hyperbolic.

Rape is not analogous to taxation. Nor is taxation analogous to mugging, armed robbery, grand larceny, shoplifting, grand theft auto or any other criminal act that you want to throw into the mix.

Not to mention - unless you're Amish or some sort of hermit like the unabomber, everyone participates in mainstream society.

you already did go down that road though..... now you refuse to back it up?

No Paul, it's a lame counterpoint. The tax system has rules, some people pay more and some people pay less (or none), who knew? Clearly I didn't

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's just meaningless hyperbole for the sake of being hyperbolic.

Rape is not analogous to taxation. Nor is taxation analogous to mugging, armed robbery, grand larceny, shoplifting, grand theft auto or any other criminal act that you want to throw into the mix.

Not to mention - unless you're Amish or some sort of hermit like the unabomber, everyone participates in mainstream society.

Oh I see. So because the government does it, then it's ok. It's not what the crime is. I gotcha.

So if the government wants to beat the hell out of your child and call it "training for life" then it's ok and not assault. I gotcha.

Glad we cleared that up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh I see. So because the government does it, then it's ok. It's not what the crime is. I gotcha.

So if the government wants to beat the hell out of your child and call it "training for life" then it's ok and not assault. I gotcha.

Glad we cleared that up.

Paul, do you have an argument that isn't emotionally loaded hyperbole?

You seem to go from one piece of OTT exaggeration to another.

Here's another one for you - not all "killing" is "murder". OMG! OMG! Who knew!?

[lostinblue 1,989]

My guess is that the OP doesn't know the difference between regressive and progressive tax. Progressive tax policies have existed for 70 years and have been advocated by Democrats and Republicans, including the Reagan Administration. In fact, there are no governments that exist, which have ever implemented a flat tax policy. Why? Because most economists (including ones that have worked in Republican administrations) know that a flat tax is regressive and would lead to a greater concentration of wealth into the hands of few. Wealth is not created in a vacuum. Those who are wealthy, are directly benefiting from socio-economic factors, including a large enough population with enough capital of their own to keep a robust economy going.

The OP should go look at which countries have the highest concentrations of wealth into the hands of few and see if any of them look attractive enough for them to live. May I suggest looking at the Philippines. If you have money to begin with, you might like a place like that, but if you are starting from scratch with just the sheer will to climb your way up the economic ladder there, good luck.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6297

Ending Tax Socialism

by James A. Dorn

James A. Dorn is vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute.

It's time to expose the pretense of morality that is inherent in progressive taxation and to end the system of tax socialism that has eroded economic and personal liberties in the United States. Progressive income taxation should be abolished and replaced with a flat-rate tax on income or consumption -- not just to enhance efficiency but to protect our rights to life, liberty and property.

In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used "to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state." Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation, as a means of achieving "social justice," remains ingrained in the modern liberal psyche.

A progressive income tax violates the very heart and soul of the Framer's Constitution of liberty. Our constitutional democracy rests on the principles that individuals are equal under the law, that consent is the basis of just laws, and that the powers of the federal government are strictly limited. None of those principles are consistent with taxing incomes at progressively higher rates. The Supreme Court struck down early attempts to legislate a federal income tax, until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. When the first income tax was passed by Congress in 1894, the New York Times called the legislation, "a vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic, and socialistic act," and the Washington Post added, "It is an abhorrent and calamitous monstrosity."

Because there is no objective way to measure social justice, there is no end to the redistribution that can occur under a progressive tax system. Under such a system, neither persons nor property are safe from the hand of the state.

Conservatives and liberals alike fall into a populist trap by trying to justify some progressivity in order to satisfy the majority's preference for greater income equality. Elevating the principle of democratic rule above the protection of individual rights to achieve equality of result, however, violates the very rules of just conduct that lie at the heart of a free society. A flat-rate tax is consistent with a rule of law and with the principle of nondiscrimination. Everyone would pay the same tax rate, and income from all sources would be taxed only once; there would be no double taxation of interest and dividends. If the flat-rate tax were applied to consumption rather than income, the current bias against saving would disappear and economic growth would increase.

One major benefit of a flat-rate tax is that it would make the cost of government expansion visible to all taxpayers, especially if combined with a balanced-budget amendment. There would be a built-in incentive to compare the costs and benefits of new government programs. The invisible hand of the democratic process would then work more judiciously to determine the size of government.

Under progressive taxation, on the other hand, there is a constant temptation to raise tax rates on the rich to pay for new programs. At the limit, persons with high incomes may face a marginal tax rate of 100 percent, while those with low incomes pay nothing. (During the 1950s marginal tax rates exceeded 90 percent in the United States.) That's tax socialism in spades.

If we let constitutional principles be eroded by majority rule, in the name of social justice, then both freedom and true justice will be lost. Progressive taxation is not a virtue but a vice. It presumes that the property rights of the wealthy are not as sacred as the property rights of the poor and that the values of the majority are superior to the rights of the minority.

Those who support progressive taxation pretend to be on the moral high ground but, in fact, they have no ground to stand on. Envy, not justice, is at the root of the argument for discriminatory taxation. That is why those who most strongly advocate progressive taxation are in favor of the welfare state. "Law is the bond of civil society, and justice is equality under the law," wrote Cicero. If we are to restore civil society and move from tax socialism to tax justice, we need to abolish progressive taxation, institute a fair flat tax and limit the size of government. Otherwise, class warfare and welfare will prevail.

Edited October 4, 2010 by lostinblue

[Heracles 417]

You seem to think that individuals amassing billions in assets somehow do it at the expense

of the poor who struggle on a few cents a day. Their wealth may or may not trickle down

to the poor, but the nation's collective wealth makes even poor people better off than

they otherwise would be.

The richest man in the world is in Mexico. How well is that trickle-down strategy working there? Find me a second and third world country and almost all have few that are wealthy controlling the majority of the wealth. To the contrary, most other first world countries have fewer billionaires but the middle class is doing much better.

Realistically, what it comes do is choice. Do the citizens of a country want a country where there are a number of billionaires, controlling a majority of the wealth. Or do they want a country where there are less billionaires but people like themselves - the 98.5% - have a much better Q.O.L. To those that are neither stupid or brainwashed, the answer is quite obvious. If the Dems can focus on this rather than rights BS, they will outsmart Repubs.

The wealthy look out for themselves, so why shouldn't the rest of America? They want minimum wage abolished, we want them to pay 90% of the income above $350K to tax again. Guess who there is more of... The Repubs have the upper hand though, as attempting to wake up the fools and have them realize the mega-wealthy don't give rats azz about them is harder to do than turn lead into gold.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Heracles

[luckytxn 2,265]

That wealthy man hires a lot of people and puts food on many peoples family tables. He also pays a huge income tax to the state and personally has a mini army of guards and people that work for him. He also gives a lot of money to many worthy causes. His wealth also spreads out to the community and local coffers in a substantial way.

[Heracles 417]

That wealthy man hires a lot of people and puts food on many peoples family tables. He also pays a huge income tax to the state and personally has a mini army of guards and people that work for him. He also gives a lot of money to many worthy causes. His wealth also spreads out to the community and local coffers in a substantial way.

Interesting point, particularly when considering the thread about poverty the other week, as it doesn't seem to be working too well in Texas.

I'd rather a majority of Americans have the freedom and choice to be able to spend money themselves than rely on the few who are wealthy, to spend for us. Surely you of all people, who dislikes relying on others and hates socialism so much, would advocate for we the people having the freedom to choose; rather than the few making this choice for us. Ring a bell?

Edited October 4, 2010 by Heracles

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'd rather a majority of Americans have the freedom and choice to be able to spend money themselves than rely on the few who are wealthy, to spend for us. Surely you of all people, who dislikes relying on others and hates socialism so much, would advocate for we the people having the freedom to choose; rather than the few to make this choice for us. Ring a bell?

I have to agree.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Interesting point, particularly when considering the thread about poverty the other week, as it doesn't seem to be working too well in Texas.

I'd rather a majority of Americans have the freedom and choice to be able to spend money themselves than rely on the few who are wealthy, to spend for us. Surely you of all people, who dislikes relying on others and hates socialism so much, would advocate for we the people having the freedom to choose; rather than the few making this choice for us. Ring a bell?

I think you missed the point that $50,000/yr in New York is a lot different than $50,000 a year in Texas. Our cost of living here is a lot cheaper, and hell we have the best infrastructure in the entire nation... so really your argument fails on Texas being so 'bad.'

[Heracles 417]

I think you missed the point that $50,000/yr in New York is a lot different than $50,000 a year in Texas. Our cost of living here is a lot cheaper, and hell we have the best infrastructure in the entire nation... so really your argument fails on Texas being so 'bad.'

They compared the level of poverty and Texas did poorly, no way to beat around the Bush on this one. Here is an example of Texas, Texas has an extremely large number of uninsured individuals in the state, yet wants to talk about health care, like you are some experts.

Infrastructure? There is a reason why property is worth x in Boston, yet 1/4 that in various Texan cities. Furthermore, whenever I mention Texas to people within the US or abroad, it often results in laughter, certainly not the recognition Texans assume they have. Had I relied on the opinions of Texans, I would think Houston is Dubai, Hong Kong, Sydney, NYC, London, Berlin, Singapore and Tokyo in one.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Heracles