Plus "tax them more because they'll miss it less" seems like something along the lines of "let them eat cake" in that it's just someone spouting BS when they don't really know the situation.

Fair enough.  IMO, there are also plenty of hard-working people who don't make a lot of money, who will take a hit in trying to improve their lives with more of a tax burden. There are also many many MANY more of those people than there are millionaires, and it's not like the millionaires are working 25x as hard as many of the struggling lower-middle class.  So if we're trying to do what's best for the economy and us as a society, the progressive tax system makes the most sense.  In my opinion.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2014 11:31:00 AM (view original):
We play the games.   And, if he does have another username that plays, he hides behind his 2nd username to argue.   It's the internet, isn't that hidden enough?

A lot of things were good ideas that are no longer good ideas.   Sometime things have to change to improve the world(or country).   I think we agree that "poor" is becoming an heirloom that is passed down to the next generation.  I believe a major reason for that is there isn't much incentive to do better.   If someone is going to take care of your basic needs(the govt via welfare programs and tax breaks), you have to be motivated to improve your position.  I think we can agree that "motivation" isn't a trait everyone possesses.   So, IMO, when people are told "You'll pay your fair share regardless of your income", I think more people will find motivation to improve their income. 

Or, they'll be ****** harder than they already were.

This is really the worst argument for changing the tax code to a more regressive system.

"It's too easy being poor. Their lives still have some semblance of joy and fulfillment. Let's eliminate that by taxing them more and making being poor less fun. Maybe then they won't all want to be poor."

Idiot.

FWIW, I do understand how the guy who makes nothing and has no urgency to improve his situation, doesn't work hard and demands that you pay a higher tax rate, to accommodate him, would be frustrating.  I know this guy.  There are plenty of them.  But I'm thinking of the guys who make the same amount, who do work hard, who are trying to improve their situation.  I'd argue there are more of them.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2014 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Fair enough.  IMO, there are also plenty of hard-working people who don't make a lot of money, who will take a hit in trying to improve their lives with more of a tax burden. There are also many many MANY more of those people than there are millionaires, and it's not like the millionaires are working 25x as hard as many of the struggling lower-middle class.  So if we're trying to do what's best for the economy and us as a society, the progressive tax system makes the most sense.  In my opinion.

I don't disagree that suddenly having less money in your pocket won't hurt some people.    And I don't disagree that some hard-working people can't improve their position.  However, it's possible to change your situation.   EVERYONE spends money on something they don't need.   moy hates poverty-level smokers for this reason.  Chicken and rice is good for you and cheap.   You can eat for a week on less than $10.   But no one wants to eat nothing but chicken and rice every day(I've done it for months).   Sometimes you have to get what you need not what you want.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2014 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2014 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Fair enough.  IMO, there are also plenty of hard-working people who don't make a lot of money, who will take a hit in trying to improve their lives with more of a tax burden. There are also many many MANY more of those people than there are millionaires, and it's not like the millionaires are working 25x as hard as many of the struggling lower-middle class.  So if we're trying to do what's best for the economy and us as a society, the progressive tax system makes the most sense.  In my opinion.

I don't disagree that suddenly having less money in your pocket won't hurt some people.    And I don't disagree that some hard-working people can't improve their position.  However, it's possible to change your situation.   EVERYONE spends money on something they don't need.   moy hates poverty-level smokers for this reason.  Chicken and rice is good for you and cheap.   You can eat for a week on less than $10.   But no one wants to eat nothing but chicken and rice every day(I've done it for months).   Sometimes you have to get what you need not what you want.

Taxes aren't a morality tool. They aren't there to punish people for being too poor or too rich or to create an incentive for people to change.

We collect taxes because we need money to run the country. The best way to collect the needed taxes and cause the least amount of harm to the economy in general and the people we take them from is to take the dollars that have the lowest marginal utility.

Plus, those people are rich, and will miss the money less.

"Let them eat cheeseburgers!"

Cheeseburgers are more expensive than chicken and rice.    We could tax them a lot and get them down to chicken and rice level.

Discrimination is wrong.....until it is ok.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2014 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2014 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Fair enough.  IMO, there are also plenty of hard-working people who don't make a lot of money, who will take a hit in trying to improve their lives with more of a tax burden. There are also many many MANY more of those people than there are millionaires, and it's not like the millionaires are working 25x as hard as many of the struggling lower-middle class.  So if we're trying to do what's best for the economy and us as a society, the progressive tax system makes the most sense.  In my opinion.

I don't disagree that suddenly having less money in your pocket won't hurt some people.    And I don't disagree that some hard-working people can't improve their position.  However, it's possible to change your situation.   EVERYONE spends money on something they don't need.   moy hates poverty-level smokers for this reason.  Chicken and rice is good for you and cheap.   You can eat for a week on less than $10.   But no one wants to eat nothing but chicken and rice every day(I've done it for months).   Sometimes you have to get what you need not what you want.

Right. So if there are plenty of hard-working people who are struggling to improve their situation, and there are a lot more of those people than there are millionaires (just 4% of households are millionaire households), you understand why there are many people who don't see the logic in raising the tax burden on the hard-working lower-middle class people? Unless you'd argue that there are a similar percentage of millionaires who are struggling because of the circumstances they've put themselves in.

Posted by The Taint on 6/19/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Discrimination is wrong.....until it is ok.

Yea, and again, if the argument it "we should do what's "fair" because it's fair," then I appreciate the argument more than not agreeing that a progressive tax system accomplishes what it's meant to do.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2014 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2014 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/19/2014 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Fair enough.  IMO, there are also plenty of hard-working people who don't make a lot of money, who will take a hit in trying to improve their lives with more of a tax burden. There are also many many MANY more of those people than there are millionaires, and it's not like the millionaires are working 25x as hard as many of the struggling lower-middle class.  So if we're trying to do what's best for the economy and us as a society, the progressive tax system makes the most sense.  In my opinion.

I don't disagree that suddenly having less money in your pocket won't hurt some people.    And I don't disagree that some hard-working people can't improve their position.  However, it's possible to change your situation.   EVERYONE spends money on something they don't need.   moy hates poverty-level smokers for this reason.  Chicken and rice is good for you and cheap.   You can eat for a week on less than $10.   But no one wants to eat nothing but chicken and rice every day(I've done it for months).   Sometimes you have to get what you need not what you want.

Right. So if there are plenty of hard-working people who are struggling to improve their situation, and there are a lot more of those people than there are millionaires (just 4% of households are millionaire households), you understand why there are many people who don't see the logic in raising the tax burden on the hard-working lower-middle class people? Unless you'd argue that there are a similar percentage of millionaires who are struggling because of the circumstances they've put themselves in.

Sure.   That doesn't mean I'm comfortable saying "tax them more because they'll miss it less."   It's not my place to determine if people will "miss" their money, or cheeseburgers, less than the next guy.   We're all afforded the same "amenities" the govt provides from tax revenue.   So, in my opinion, everyone should foot a portion of the bill even if that means they'll have to cut back on smokes(or eat something else). 

People shouldn't be allowed to live like 14 y/o teenage girls who work 20 hours at Hardee's so they can afford their iphone and gas money with mommy paying for everything else.   You want to use the roads, help pay for them.   You want police protection, help pay for it.   

Honestly, if a sales tax replaced income tax, I think you'd find that more revenue would be generated at the current tax rate.   Tourism dollars, retiree dollars and illegal dollars will suddenly be in play for taxation.   I think that would allow the rate to decrease.   The biggest "problem" I see is retiree dollars.  It's one thing if you're living on a yacht in Boca Raton.   But it's completely different if you're on a SS income with no retirement money just getting by.   That's the people I would worry about.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, if a sales tax replaced income tax, I think you'd find that more revenue would be generated at the current tax rate.   Tourism dollars, retiree dollars and illegal dollars will suddenly be in play for taxation.   I think that would allow the rate to decrease.   The biggest "problem" I see is retiree dollars.  It's one thing if you're living on a yacht in Boca Raton.   But it's completely different if you're on a SS income with no retirement money just getting by.   That's the people I would worry about.

Don't you get it? We haven't provided enough incentive for those retiree's to obtain their yachts in Boca. Right now they have it too easy on social security. There's no motivation for them to do better and they never will. We should actually just dump them all in the ocean a mile out. The ones that are able to swim back obviously have the motivation and desire to live. The ones that can't clearly lacked the desire needed to make it in the world and we are all better off.

I like mine with lettuce and tomato,
Heinz 57 and French-fried potato,
Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer -
Good God almighty, which way do I steer?