Everyone? Which social programs do the middle class benefit from. They don't get any welfare assistance or health insurance subsidies, and people lose money with social security. So which social programs do the middle class benefit from?

By the way, the term "fair share" is absolute bullshit. Even B_L agrees with that. If I have contributed $100k and you contribute $100 who has paid their fair share. And don't give me that crap about the wealthy have more to give.

Education and infrastructure are two.

Proportional paying is better than just paying the same amount.

I'm guessing by amount you mean %. How is it more fair for one person to pay 30% and another to pay 10%? You can't logically think that's fair. I know you're smarter than that. Like I said, at least B_L admitted that it's not fair. His argument is that taxes are supposed to be effective, not fair. I disagree with him, but I can buy his reasoning. The concept of "fair share" is complete bullshit. You know that. I know that. Some people pay $0 in taxes. If you want to use the "fair share" verbiage, it would make more logical sense to focus on them considering they pay nothing. We need to stop shaming the successful in this country. We should promote success. This is what makes socialism so evil.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/9/2019 12:31:00 AM (view original):
I'm guessing by amount you mean %. How is it more fair for one person to pay 30% and another to pay 10%? You can't logically think that's fair. I know you're smarter than that. Like I said, at least B_L admitted that it's not fair. His argument is that taxes are supposed to be effective, not fair. I disagree with him, but I can buy his reasoning. The concept of "fair share" is complete bullshit. You know that. I know that. Some people pay $0 in taxes. If you want to use the "fair share" verbiage, it would make more logical sense to focus on them considering they pay nothing. We need to stop shaming the successful in this country. We should promote success. This is what makes socialism so evil.

By amount I mean total amount paid, not %.

Okay, That's what confused me by your post. I don't think anyone is in disagreement with you about that. Even people who are for a flat tax believe that in terms of percentages. They are against progressive tax rates, but no one believes that someone who makes $500,000 and someone who makes $50,000 should pay the same amount just that they should pay the same percentage of income.

Im sure I confused you with my response to the hypothetical example. My apologies.

By the way, just for clarity I am actually for a progressive tax rate within reason. It violates what I believe in, but I think it's unavoidable in a functioning society.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/9/2019 12:43:00 AM (view original):
By the way, just for clarity I am actually for a progressive tax rate within reason. It violates what I believe in, but I think it's unavoidable in a functioning society.

Within reason. 70% is not within reason.

Posted by tangplay on 2/9/2019 12:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 11:27:00 PM (view original):
How? I work hard for my $10. How is it more fair for me to put in $5 and you and all3 to only contribute $1? You have no right to the money that I earned.

Here's the thing about taxes, they are a necessary evil. They are a legal form of theft. The government produces nothing. The government should take the bare minimum to function.

Every able-bodied adult has the opportunity to earn a living in America. They don't have a need for unearned handouts from the government. I know you think I am harsh for this belief. I understand why you think that. I appreciate your compassion for people. I hope you never lose that. But my view is actually a view of optimism. I believe that everyone is capable of success. I believe in personal responsibility. I think highly of people. If you are permanently poor, you mismanaged your money and your life. We shouldn't punish those who produce and have been wise. That is a terrible and immoral thing to do. Progressive tax rates punish success.

My only exception is for children. Children are unable to fend for themselves. If they draw a crappy lot and get crappy parents, that is not their fault. I believe that the initial responsibility falls on the shoulders of the community, but if the community fails them then someone has to step in. This is why I am okay with programs like WIC.

You aren't giving that money to me, we are buying something that we all benefit from. But we should pay the same proportionally, not in wealth.

If we all put in half, that's $7. If we all put in two dollars, that's $6 and all3 and I are out of money. You would still be in the better position.

I believe everyone has opportunity in America, but not everyone has equal opportunity. It's not a punishment to those who succeed, it is them paying their fair share. It's not like I am arguing to make the rich suddenly poor. The rich are still better off.

Children who draw a crappy lot should get boosted but children who draw a great lot should not have to pay taxes?

Why should everyone have equal opportunity? That’s silly. Everyone has equal rights but opportunities will never be equal.

Posted by all3 on 2/8/2019 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Do you really think people smart enough to accumulate that kind of wealth aren't going to be smart enough to find things like join holdings to make sure their designees get the $, even if such an utterly ridiculous law is in place?

You don’t even have to find “join holdings.” Any assets in an irrevocable trust are not subject to estate taxes.

Everyone has equal opportunity in terms of formal secondary education which, as stupid as I think it is, is nearly essential to a good life. Hell, if you are poor you can go to an Ivy League school for FREE. If you are a minority, you actually have more opportunity. Black kids can get into prestigious schools with lower scores than whites or Asians. Here's the thing, everyone in America is privileged.

Now, saying that there are people who are more privileged than others. I was afforded educational opportunities that most aren't. I was lucky enough to come from a family with some wealth. This is not opportunity that can be equalized. That's just reality.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 8:53:00 PM (view original):
You do have a disdain for the wealthy. You have already essentially said that you don't believe anyone should be able to make more $10M/year.

And here's the thing, it's not all concentrated at the top. It's fluid. 3 of the top 4 richest Americans came from middle class families. 7 of the top 10 came from middle class families. America is great because this is possible. There is always room for a new crop at the top. The socialist views expounded by the left kill these opportunities. Socialism is thievery. A 99% tax bracket at any level is thievery. America is great because it presents equal opportunity for everyone.

Wanting to take what the wealthy has is pure jealousy. If you don't like being poor do what it takes to make a good living. I won't cover what those are because we all already know what those are. There is no guarantee that you will be Warren Buffet rich, but you sure as heck won't be poor.

The truth is that if you are poor temporarily it's misfortune. If you're poor for life, it's because you are bad money. There are too many opportunities in America for someone to be poor for life.

I’m getting tired of repeating myself, but i’ll Give it one more shot.

I dont have disdain for the wealthy. I’m not jealous. I just think the country is better off if less money is concentrated at the top. Fewer billionaires. Fewer hundred millionaires. More people with the ability to afford a mortgage, heath insurance, childcare, etc..

You might say, “yeah, billionaire business owners make that happen.”

My counter would be look at the last 40 years. We, as a country, have bent over backwards to cater to the wealthy in the hopes that it would trickle down.

And it hasn’t.

We need to try something new.

So, you think the rich should be compelled at gun point to hand over what they have, so that our government can redistribute it? That is socialism and theft.

I understand your argument. You can repeat it all you want. It will still be theft and I will disagree with it.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/9/2019 12:07:00 AM (view original):
Everyone? Which social programs do the middle class benefit from. They don't get any welfare assistance or health insurance subsidies, and people lose money with social security. So which social programs do the middle class benefit from?

By the way, the term "fair share" is absolute bullshit. Even B_L agrees with that. If I have contributed $100k and you contribute $100 who has paid their fair share. And don't give me that crap about the wealthy have more to give.

There are different arguments for what is fair. Fair could mean the exact same dollar amount regardless of income.

Fair it could be the same percentage of income.

Or fair could be the way we do it now, where we collect higher percentages of money with less utility to the person who made it.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/9/2019 9:39:00 AM (view original):
So, you think the rich should be compelled at gun point to hand over what they have, so that our government can redistribute it? That is socialism and theft.

I understand your argument. You can repeat it all you want. It will still be theft and I will disagree with it.

You’re completely irrational.

Paying taxes when you live here is part of the deal. It’s not gunpoint. They are free to leave.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/9/2019 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/9/2019 12:07:00 AM (view original):
Everyone? Which social programs do the middle class benefit from. They don't get any welfare assistance or health insurance subsidies, and people lose money with social security. So which social programs do the middle class benefit from?

By the way, the term "fair share" is absolute bullshit. Even B_L agrees with that. If I have contributed $100k and you contribute $100 who has paid their fair share. And don't give me that crap about the wealthy have more to give.

There are different arguments for what is fair. Fair could mean the exact same dollar amount regardless of income.

Fair it could be the same percentage of income.

Or fair could be the way we do it now, where we collect higher percentages of money with less utility to the person who made it.

Are you retracting previous statements? You've already said in the past that you don't think it's fair, but fair is not the objective for you, effective is. Which one is it?