NationStates Jolt Archive

The title of this thread is the motto for some in my home state of Washington. The sign should read Tax the rich to death or kill the poor. Would have been more fitting. This was in regards to expanding health care to the "poor" in the state of Washington. Don't mind the near 10 billion budget shortfall our state is looking at in the next 2 year tax budget. Thank god the state can't run a true deficit like the fed's can. They unlike our federal government have to balance by law.

http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/1/196/19648.jpg


So the question I put out there for you to ponder is where is the cutoff point of being "rich". Second is what do you think the "fair share" is for the people you define as rich? Third, Should we go after corporations instead? How say you?

[...] "Tax the rich or kill the poor."
Why not do both?

I wouldn't really mind it.

[ Well, not killing, but a free ticket to the country of choice if you show consistently incapable of providing for yourself, without a solid reason such as a disability. ]

Reverse it. :)

What the hell guys? I leave the state for five fucking days and suddenly everyone's all Patrick Henry-ish? I just can't let you guys out of my sight, can I? :tongue:

$250000, A Quarter Million Dollars is pretty fuckin Rich...


Something close to 10%, and yes, we should...

Why not tax death? That will solve both problems! :D

Being poor, I'll vote for the former, please.

Well it at times has been high enough that the top bracket was in the 90%
To be honest I find the government taking more then 33% of anyone income absurd.
And a constitutional amendment to cap tax rates to that outside of declared war would be nice.

Kill the tax and enrich the poor?

Reverse it. :)
Tax the poor or kill the rich?

Either way it can bring money to the state. State wins, people lose. :D

My views on rich/poor and tax are simple...

Abolish tax on fuel for the poor, provided its used to set fire to a banker.

I live in a city in Washington where the roads haven't been fully replaced since the Bicentennial (or earlier, brick pavement is clearly visible on some streets).

I think that corporations are the beneficiaries of countless tax loopholes, the most shameful of which are offshore exemptions. Close those fuckers and make those companies pay their due.

I think "rich" is a sliding scale depending on several things like family size, liquidity, and some others I've probably not even thought about.

However, a stable income of $200K+ a year would qualify a hell of a lot of people as rich, and $100K-$200K a year as being well off.

So the question I put out there for you to ponder is where is the cutoff point of being "rich".It depends on the state. I'll go with three times what the living wage is of the area.

Second is what do you think the "fair share" is for the people you define as rich?Hm. I suppose I can compromise, and say 50% of money above the rate I defined above.

Third, Should we go after corporations instead?Why not in addition to?

Well it at times has been high enough that the top bracket was in the 90%
To be honest I find the government taking more then 33% of anyone income absurd.
And a constitutional amendment to cap tax rates to that outside of declared war would be nice.

Then we'd be at war all the time. Way to go Greed! War in Iraq #2, coming right up.:p

My views on rich/poor and tax are simple...

Abolish tax on fuel for the poor, provided its used to set fire to a banker.

Yay! :D

Kill the tax and enrich the poor?
That would be too non-liberal. It's the cornerstone of liberal thought, "Don't plan for the future - do what's popular now!"


Something close to 10%, and yes, we should...
Top 10% is rich? I'm top 2.5%, and I can't say I feel to any significant extent richer than the average person.

There's a small professional and entrepreneur upper-middle class between the top 5% and top 0.5%, which even collectively has much less income and wealth than the top 0.5%. Yet, this class is enormously important for the country, more than any other; it's the class that defines the country. It's the people that start new businesses and create jobs. It's the inventors and recognized scientists that advance the country's knowledge. It's the engineers and architects who build the country's infrastructure.

This class is what separates US from Zimbabwe. It's the people who enrich the country. And yet, you want to tax them out of the incentive to join this class, and the entrepreneurs out of the money they need to expand their business?

Then we'd be at war all the time. Way to go Greed! War in Iraq #2, coming right up.:p

Invading Iraq is different from a declared war.
And if both the aprties constantly put us in war to keep our taxes high I could see third parties taking over finally.

Invading Iraq is different from a declared war.

We'd declare it. And then another one, and another one. And most people wouldn't complain because we're only taxing teh ebil rich people. over 33%.

That would be too non-liberal. It's the cornerstone of liberal thought, "Don't plan for the future - do what's popular now!"



Top 10% is rich? I'm top 2.5%, and I can't say I feel to any significant extent richer than the average person.

There's a small professional and entrepreneur upper-middle class between the top 5% and top 0.5%, which even collectively has much less income and wealth than the top 0.5%. Yet, this class is enormously important for the country, more than any other; it's the class that defines the country. It's the people that start new businesses and create jobs. It's the inventors and recognized scientists that advance the country's knowledge. It's the engineers and architects who build the country's infrastructure.

This class is what separates US from Zimbabwe. It's the people who enrich the country. And yet, you want to tax them out of the incentive to join this class, and the entrepreneurs out of the money they need to expand their business?

Only a nominal percentage rise would generate massive revenue, and still not represent any significant change in the income of the rich that would act as any kind of disincentive.

Prices are a regional, so I'd have to say it matters where you are to be considered rich. I'd say something like an income of $5000+ a week woud put you in a pretty comfortable living arrangement almost anywhere.

I don't believe that the burden should fall entirely upon the rich, but everyone would be happier with less taxes. I'd be for stronger enforcement of tax laws (ha) and a slightly higher amount bestowed on the rich, but not to the point of the elimination of the class system...

And yes, definitely go after corporations, Jesus. Tax their earnings based on their profit with a cutoff rate on those, too. Smaller businesses get a smaller tax and chains would get a slightly larger share.

Tax everyone except me *nods*

Top 10% is rich?

I meant, as far as the Pay-Roll Tax is concerned, 10% of the overall income of $250000...

Not Top 10% of whatever...

Only a nominal percentage rise would generate massive revenue, and still not represent any significant change in the income of the rich that would act as any kind of disincentive.

Nuh-uh. Do that and we'll turn into Zimbabwe. Shit, the very fact we've just mentioned it has quintupled the rate money is being printed. And now Obama is stealing land from whites and sending mobs round to beat up the Republicans. Nice one. I hope you're proud.

Only a nominal percentage rise would generate massive revenue, and still not represent any significant change in the income of the rich that would act as any kind of disincentive.
It wouldn't generate massive revenue. 5% to 0.5% is not the rich ones. It's mostly people who are running a small business. The ones who even without taxes already give more to the country than they take.

The top 0.5%, yes, that's the really rich. But no one intends to raise the tax specifically on them. It's always about raising the tax on your neighbor, who - the bastard! - happens to have bought the same car in a higher trim than you. A-ha, let him eat that!

It wouldn't generate massive revenue. 5% to 0.5% is not the rich ones. It's mostly people who are running a small business. The ones who even without taxes already give more to the country than they take.

The top 0.5%, yes, that's the really rich. But no one intends to raise the tax specifically on them. It's always about raising the tax on your neighbor, who - the bastard! - happens to have bought the same car in a higher trim than you. A-ha, let him eat that!

Why are the people starting small businesses in the upper 5%? Maybe the fact that the other 95% can't afford to is a symptom of the problem.

We'd declare it. And then another one, and another one. And most people wouldn't complain because we're only taxing teh ebil rich people. over 33%.

No they would be mad because them and their sons and daughters would have to go fight it.

Since people are more important then money, if the option is tax the rich or kill the poor, I wont shed a single tear for the rich when they get their taxes raised.


Not that I do now either, but even less so in the above case.

No they would be mad because them and their sons and daughters would have to go fight it.

Like how all of the US is against the war in Iraq? Oh shi!:eek2:

Why are the people starting small businesses in the upper 5%? Maybe the fact that the other 95% can't afford to is a symptom of the problem.
Many of them actually start with sort of borrowed money. Saving up their wage, borrowing from the family, the friends, finally taking a loan.

Are they all in the top 5% - not nearly. Many are way below that point. But when you're running a successful business, you tend to have to be in the top 10% at least. Note that most of that money tends to be used to keep their business running (and not everything is deductible) rather than for personal pleasure.

No amount of tax will ever give the underclass enough money to start a business, simply because there isn't enough money in the world for that. What we can do, however, is not interfere excessively with those who can and do start new enterprises.

Why are the people starting small businesses in the upper 5%? Maybe the fact that the other 95% can't afford to is a symptom of the problem.

Starting a business has many costs. Many of those are directly attributed to government. Try opening a restaurant. Yeah you can do a small place for a 100k however to do a restaurant capable of high income you are looking at 1 mill +. For one the start up regulations and cost of implementing them are high. They ask for some stupid shit to be done to get a place to code. I know some are needed for food safety and such but it is absurd. The other thing is the cost of real estate another thing I attribute to the government. The lax regulations in the years past has driven real estate costs through the roof. Then on top of the government creating a artificial real estate spike they raise property taxes to a high rate. If I didn't think government was so dysfunctional at times I would think they planned that. It's hard to start a profitable business right away.
Now you can start a "small" business with little money. With a little or a lot of luck you could produce a profit. There is a reason why most small business fail. Anyway my point is there is a nasty loop that makes starting a profitable business difficult. The government is right in the center of that negative loop.

Like how all of the US is against the war in Iraq? Oh shi!:eek2:

yeah only took them 6 years.
Once we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt we will have a president able to send troops over seas for awhile.

Many of them actually start with sort of borrowed money. Saving up their wage, borrowing from the family, the friends, finally taking a loan.

Are they all in the top 5% - not nearly. Many are way below that point. But when you're running a successful business, you tend to float into the top 10% at least. Note that most of that money tends to be used to keep their business running (and often not deductible) rather than for personal pleasure.

No amount of tax will ever give the underclass enough money to start a businesses, simply because there isn't enough money in the world for that. What we can do, however, is not interfere excessively with those who do start new enterprises.

I started my business adventures with about 50k of money I had saved from working for someone. It can be done.

yeah only took them 6 years.
Once we are out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt we will have a president able to send troops over seas for awhile.
...

Right. You keep believing that.

No amount of tax will ever give the underclass enough money to start a business, simply because there isn't enough money in the world for that. What we can do, however, is not interfere excessively with those who can and do start new enterprises.

I disagree completely with this.

I started my business adventures with about 50k of money I had saved from working for someone. It can be done.
That seems like a really small start... What was it specifically, if that's not a secret? Or just investments/a joint venture?

No amount of tax will ever give the underclass enough money to start a business, simply because there isn't enough money in the world for that. What we can do, however, is not interfere excessively with those who can and do start new enterprises.

Your logic behind this should be worth a laugh. Lets hear it.

I disagree completely with this.
Is LG back to his old good sarcastic self?


If not: It's mathematically impossible to make the low-earning part of the populace able to start a business without major savings or loans. A business normally involves hiring other people to do certain work, and to hire someone, you need to have more money than he is to earn, so that you can pay him.
That means that no matter how rich the society is, you first have to get at least into the top 10%, and only then hire others. It's absolute wealth that matters here, it's relative.

Trve: And if you introduce enough tax to make everyone equal, no one will be ever able to hire someone.

pleasure.

No amount of tax will ever give the underclass enough money to start a business, simply because there isn't enough money in the world for that. What we can do, however, is not interfere excessively with those who can and do start new enterprises.

There will always be an underclass and I maintain there has to be one for society to function correctly.

The trick in my opinion is to make the largest middle class as possible. However the middle class tends to work for someone rather than start a business. We need to change that.

I think the government should be in the business of encouraging small business growth. However there is not enough brains to figure out that's what they need to be doing.

That seems like a really small start... What was it specifically, if that's not a secret? Or just investments/a joint venture?

The very first venture was a joint venture with two friends. Everyone put in 50k. We got it rolling and then sold the business for over a million. That's when I struck out on my own for the first time.


Edit: There was a lot of luck involved with all of this.

Starting a business has many costs. Many of those are directly attributed to government. Try opening a restaurant. Yeah you can do a small place for a 100k however to do a restaurant capable of high income you are looking at 1 mill +. For one the start up regulations and cost of implementing them are high. They ask for some stupid shit to be done to get a place to code. I know some are needed for food safety and such but it is absurd. The other thing is the cost of real estate another thing I attribute to the government. The lax regulations in the years past has driven real estate costs through the roof. Then on top of the government creating a artificial real estate spike they raise property taxes to a high rate. If I didn't think government was so dysfunctional at times I would think they planned that. It's hard to start a profitable business right away.
Now you can start a "small" business with little money. With a little or a lot of luck you could produce a profit. There is a reason why most small business fail. Anyway my point is there is a nasty loop that makes starting a profitable business difficult. The government is right in the center of that negative loop.

Do you think these regulations exist to maintain such a high bar for start a successful new business out of a dysfunction of government, or out of an intentional function of corporate-influenced government to stifle competition?

Is LG back to his old good sarcastic self?


If not: It's mathematically impossible to make the low-earning part of the populace able to start a business without major savings or loans. A business normally involves hiring other people to do certain work, and to hire someone, you need to have more money than he is to earn, so that you can pay him.
That means that no matter how rich the society is, you first have to get at least into the top 10%, and only then hire others. It's absolute wealth that matters here, it's relative.

Trve: And if you introduce enough tax to make everyone equal, no one will be ever able to hire someone.

A business involves producing goods to sell in order to purchase what you need and don't have.

Do you think these regulations exist to maintain such a high bar for start a successful new business out of a dysfunction of government, or out of an intentional function of corporate-invluence government to stifle competition?

Both to be perfectly honest. The rich and I am one of them(on the low end) doesn't like competition. It's a natural instinct really. The rich hang out with the government people and contribute to their campaigns. Who is the government most likely to listen to?
The other aspect is that you do have people that think the government should be the end all be all. In order to create the perfect nanny state you have to discourage people from making it on their own. These two forces are very powerful and if anything should be referenced to as "The Man" it is this. The Man really does want to keep you down. No joke.

Both to be perfectly honest. The rich and I am one of them(on the low end) doesn't like competition. It's a natural instinct really. The rich hang out with the government people and contribute to their campaigns. Who is the government most likely to listen to?
The other aspect is that you do have people that think the government should be the end all be all. In order to create the perfect nanny state you have to discourage people from making it on their own. These two forces are very powerful and if anything should be referenced to as "The Man" it is this. The Man really does want to keep you down. No joke.

I suspect that the system is deliberately designed to guarantee that the number of new entrepreneurs is kept artificially low in order to keep sales of existing large businesses artificially high.

A business involves producing goods to sell in order to purchase what you need and don't have.
The kind of business done without hiring people is called craft.

Craft can often be a way to a business, though.



The very first venture was a joint venture with two friends. Everyone put in 50k. We got it rolling and then sold the business for over a million. That's when I struck out on my own for the first time.
That's still not much for a start... so, what specifically was it, and what is it now? If it's ok to ask of course.

Is LG back to his old good sarcastic self?


If not: It's mathematically impossible to make the low-earning part of the populace able to start a business without major savings or loans. A business normally involves hiring other people to do certain work, and to hire someone, you need to have more money than he is to earn, so that you can pay him.
That means that no matter how rich the society is, you first have to get at least into the top 10%, and only then hire others. It's absolute wealth that matters here, it's relative.



Personally, however, I would make a seperation between what constitute Income, and what constitutes Capital gained from Loans...

I suspect that the system is deliberately designed to guarantee that the number of new entrepreneurs is kept artificially low in order to keep sales of existing large businesses artificially high.

People say clowns are dumb.... :p I always figured you guys were smart. It takes genius to fit so many clowns in a small car. How do you guys do that anyway? :tongue:

People say clowns are dumb.... :p I always figured you guys were smart. It takes genius to fit so many clowns in a small car. How do you guys do that anyway? :tongue:

They use one of these, http://theboombox.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mini-cooper-mosaic01.jpg

That's still not much for a start... so, what specifically was it, and what is it now? If it's ok to ask of course.

We split the tasks of course. Two salesman plus a natural organizer. We found a product to sell to commercial and industrial business. We got a the rights to distribute a specific product line. Then we went out and got customers from sales calls and selling at the right price. Once we installed the machinery we sold service contracts. The service contracts were where the money was at. Once we saturated the area we started attracting offers for the business. We finally sold out to a much larger business like ours. We took the money and went out to start more business. This time I went into restaurants/bars and started a Insurance brokerage based off the same business model as the first one. Repeat and rinse.

why not just tax the middle class seeing as how its the largest and most profitable group to tax :confused:

why not just tax the middle class seeing as how its the largest and most profitable group to tax :confused:

Because it's the largest, you want to tax the people who aren't a large enough group to make a difference when voting. Don't you know how Democracy works?

Because it's the largest, you want to tax the people who aren't a large enough group to make a difference when voting. Don't you know how Democracy works?

Obtain absolute Power, then, when ousted, try and seize power through Teabagging and Secession? :confused::p

Obtain absolute Power, then, when ousted, try and seize power through Teabagging and Secession? :confused::p
Well, that too. But first you have to 'promise' to not tax the middle class as much.

Because it's the largest, you want to tax the people who aren't a large enough group to make a difference when voting. Don't you know how Democracy works?

since when did the (lower) middle class get political? now go water your lawn filthy Outer republicrat Party member

since when did the (lower) middle class get political? now go water your lawn filthy Outer republicrat Party member

Middle middle class, good sir. I'll try not to upset your top hat and monocle again.

why not just tax the middle class seeing as how its the largest and most profitable group to tax :confused:

It may be the largest, but it's not the most profitable.

Middle middle class, good sir. I'll try not to upset your top hat and monocle again.

pah student class :p *buys your kidneys on the black market*

It may be the largest, but it's not the most profitable.

since when? they can't use tax havens, they never leave the country and they support income tax despite it affecting them the most

People say clowns are dumb.... :p I always figured you guys were smart. It takes genius to fit so many clowns in a small car. How do you guys do that anyway? :tongue:

We have flexible skeletons. :)

The title of this thread is the motto for some in my home state of Washington.

I find the motto ironic given that, according to wikipedia,...

The state of Washington has the least progressive tax structure in the U.S. It is one of only seven states that does not levy a personal income tax. The wealthiest one percent of Washington taxpayers pay 3.2% of their income in taxes. The poorest fifth of Washington taxpayers pay 17.6% of their income in taxes.[20]

Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_state#Economy)


So the question I put out there for you to ponder is where is the cutoff point of being "rich".

Probably the wealthiest 5 percent, maybe.

Second is what do you think the "fair share" is for the people you define as rich?

As long as there's some decent social floor for the poor, especially poor children, I don't care so much about what how much the rich have.


Third, Should we go after corporations instead?

Probably not. Capital is highly mobile in today;s world. We don't want capital flight now do we?

[didn't read the thread]

Why not tax the poor? It's a win-win!

Anyone that makes less than the median income should be considered poor. SaintB has spoken.

Oh yes, and this thread demands something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWO4JxM3nDc

...

Right. You keep believing that.

What sort of military interventions did carter and ford go on ???
Carter basically sent the military on a botched rescue attempt of hostages in Iran. But no significant muse of the military until Reagan.

Oh yes, and this thread demands something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWO4JxM3nDc

After we are done killing the poor a holiday in Cambodia is in order.

Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. Then, tax God.

That would be too non-liberal. It's the cornerstone of liberal thought, "Don't plan for the future - do what's popular now!"
Since when has "liberal" meant "political"?

Oh yes, and this thread demands something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWO4JxM3nDc

my retort
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h45WnW0ASFY

When a politician says 'we're going to tax the rich' everybody says 'Yay!' because they think he means 'the people in the next income bracket above all you fine folk who turned out to hear my speech' But what the politician actually means is, "For the purposes of taxation, 'the rich' are defined as everyone who's not a politician or on welfare."

When a politician says 'we're going to tax the rich' everybody says 'Yay!' because they think he means 'the people in the next income bracket above all you fine folk who turned out to hear my speech' But what the politician actually means is, "For the purposes of taxation, 'the rich' are defined as everyone who's not a politician or on welfare."

A flat tax would be better. If only so we can be free of politicans accusing the other side of instigating class warfare.

A flat tax would be better. If only so we can be free of politicans accusing the other side of instigating class warfare.

A flat tax would be better. Hell, even God only asks for 10% off the top. Admittedly, he does ask for the best 10%, but if He doesn't deserve it, who does?

Or maybe a national sales tax, I could see that being a good idea too.

A flat tax would be better. Hell, even God only asks for 10% off the top. Admittedly, he does ask for the best 10%, but if He doesn't deserve it, who does?

Or maybe a national sales tax, I could see that being a good idea too.

or even just set up a ratio for the tax brackets, so if you raise oen group they all have to be raised. this whole campaign on the promise to lower your taxes but raise the other guy's is distasteful, and against the concept of protecting minority rights.

A flat tax would be better. If only so we can be free of politicans accusing the other side of instigating class warfare.

A flat tax would raise taxes on the poor, thus its a form of class warfare. It would not free us of anything.

When a politician says 'we're going to tax the rich' everybody says 'Yay!' because they think he means 'the people in the next income bracket above all you fine folk who turned out to hear my speech' But what the politician actually means is, "For the purposes of taxation, 'the rich' are defined as everyone who's not a politician or on welfare."

That assertion is BS.

Or maybe a national sales tax, I could see that being a good idea too.

A regressive tax that would lead to rampant tax evasion sounds like a bad idea to me.

A flat tax would raise taxes on the poor, thus its a form of class warfare. It would not free us of anything.

Not necessarily. Put in a decently large base exemption and get rid of most other exemptions, then poor should still be fairly well protected.

Not necessarily. Put in a decently large base exemption and get rid of most other exemptions, then poor should still be fairly well protected.

That's class warfare right there you evil class warrior, you.

When a politician says 'we're going to tax the rich' everybody says 'Yay!' because they think he means 'the people in the next income bracket above all you fine folk who turned out to hear my speech' But what the politician actually means is, "For the purposes of taxation, 'the rich' are defined as everyone who's not a politician or on welfare."

:confused:

I never realised politicians existed in their own private tax bracket.

That assertion is BS.

An argument is more than just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says, but then, Michael Palin's said it better already.

A regressive tax that would lead to rampant tax evasion sounds like a bad idea to me.

Rampant tax evasion? I don't know if you've ever bought anything from a store, but the sales tax is pretty hard to avoid. It's automatically computed in and added to the total, and that's what you have to give them, or you don't get the goods. It's not like you can look at the receipt, say, 'The total is 15.67, but I see you charged me 1.50 in sales tax, and I don't like that, so I'm only going to give you 14.17." and expect to leave there holding anything but your unit.

Also, 'sales tax' = 'tax on things that are bought.' Who do you think buys more(and more expensive)stuff, people with lots of money, or people with a little bit of money?

I never realised politicians existed in their own private tax bracket.

It was mostly a joke, so I wouldn't analyze it too deeply, but the allusion is to politicians (occasionally) exempting themselves from laws they pass.

That's class warfare right there you evil class warrior, you.

once you put the base exemption(automatically adjust for inflation) it stays the same. From that point on it ceases to be I am giving you tax cut or I am only giving them a tax increase. Instead we all have our taxes raised or lowered.

Rampant tax evasion? I don't know if you've ever bought anything from a store, but the sales tax is pretty hard to avoid. It's automatically computed in and added to the total, and that's what you have to give them, or you don't get the goods. It's not like you can look at the receipt, say, 'The total is 15.67, but I see you charged me 1.50 in sales tax, and I don't like that, so I'm only going to give you 14.17." and expect to leave there holding anything but your unit.

Also, 'sales tax' = 'tax on things that are bought.' Who do you think buys more(and more expensive)stuff, people with lots of money, or people with a little bit of money?

With regards to the "evasion" bit, I'm not sure if he means black market or what ever, but I definitely agree with Tech-gnosis on the idea that a national sales tax or flat tax is regressive. That is, it is disproportionately heavier on the poorer. It is not an argument over who will pay the most tax in absolute terms, but over what proportion of income is used to pay tax.


It was mostly a joke, so I wouldn't analyze it too deeply, but the allusion is to politicians (occasionally) exempting themselves from laws they pass.

I guessed/hoped :D

Many of them actually start with sort of borrowed money. Saving up their wage, borrowing from the family, the friends, finally taking a loan.

Are they all in the top 5% - not nearly. Many are way below that point. But when you're running a successful business, you tend to have to be in the top 10% at least. Note that most of that money tends to be used to keep their business running (and not everything is deductible) rather than for personal pleasure.

No amount of tax will ever give the underclass enough money to start a business, simply because there isn't enough money in the world for that. What we can do, however, is not interfere excessively with those who can and do start new enterprises.

Dude, seriously, you're just making this shit up. If they money goes to keep the business running, it's not income. It's a business expense. You are taxed on the profits you make personally as well as, as a business.

Meanwhile, it's bullshit that somehow you'll lose motivation to make more money. If you have a choice between making 30K and keeping 20K and making 300K and keeping 140K, you'll do the latter every time.

Rampant tax evasion? I don't know if you've ever bought anything from a store, but the sales tax is pretty hard to avoid. It's automatically computed in and added to the total, and that's what you have to give them, or you don't get the goods. It's not like you can look at the receipt, say, 'The total is 15.67, but I see you charged me 1.50 in sales tax, and I don't like that, so I'm only going to give you 14.17." and expect to leave there holding anything but your unit.


Businesses evade paying the tax, not consumers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#Tax_compliance_and_evasion)

In other countries, similar VAT taxes have an average evasion rate of 20%.[33] Economist Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service found studies showing that evasion rates of sales taxes are often above 10%, even when the sales tax rate is in the single digits.[84] Tax publications by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IMF, and Brookings Institution have suggested that the upper limit for a sales tax is about 10% before incentives for evasion become too great to control.[35]

University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod argues that states would face significant issues in enforcing the tax. "Even at an average rate of around five percent, state sales taxes are difficult to administer."[92]



Also, 'sales tax' = 'tax on things that are bought.' Who do you think buys more(and more expensive)stuff, people with lots of money, or people with a little bit of money?

The rich on average have a very high savings rate and the poor tend to save little if at all. Simple math shows that the poor, who tend to spend all or nearly their income, pay more as a percentage of their income in taxes on goods and services than the rich, who spend less of their income than the poor.

once you put the base exemption(automatically adjust for inflation) it stays the same. From that point on it ceases to be I am giving you tax cut or I am only giving them a tax increase. Instead we all have our taxes raised or lowered.

The exemptions turn the flat tax into a progressive one. How does it avoid class warfare?

The exemptions turn the flat tax into a progressive one. How does it avoid class warfare?

Because your not arguing over the tax rate every single presidential election. Because you cant pull the platform of I will screw the other guy and help you.
For their to be Class warfare there has to be you know fighting or arguing over the tax rate, and playing one class off against another to get the rate you want.

Because your not arguing over the tax rate every single presidential election. Because you cant pull the platform of I will screw the other guy and help you.
For their to be Class warfare there has to be you know fighting or arguing over the tax rate, and playing one class off against another to get the rate you want.

One would need to change the Constitution to make it impossible to change the tax brackets and exemption levels and then one could advocate a constitutional amendment to negate that amendment. Class warfare still exists.

Because your not arguing over the tax rate every single presidential election. Because you cant pull the platform of I will screw the other guy and help you.
For their to be Class warfare there has to be you know fighting or arguing over the tax rate, and playing one class off against another to get the rate you want.

That would only end class warfare in sense that it resolve the war and hands victory to the rich.

One would need to change the Constitution to make it impossible to change the tax brackets and exemption levels and then one could advocate a constitutional amendment to negate that amendment. Class warfare still exists.

It is made less of an issue. Constitutional amendments take time and effort to change. And if the opposing side can accuse the other of trying to bring back the era of class warfare.

...the concept of protecting minority rights.
The act of preventing the wealthy from getting their taxes raised being equated with "protecting minority rights" has to be the most perverted use of the entire concept of "minority rights" I've ever heard.

The act of protecting minority rights relates to situations where a minority group in a society is being oppressed by society at large.

The rich are indeed a minority. However, they are a minority whom possess the vast majority of the wealth and property in the country. Taking larger portions of their proportionally larger income in order to assist the workers that make the products and sell the services they profit from can hardly be constituted as oppression. In fact, some might even call that justice.

The act of preventing the wealthy from getting their taxes raised being equated with "protecting minority rights" has to be the most perverted use of the entire concept of "minority rights" I've ever heard.

The act of protecting minority rights relates to situations where a minority group in a society is being oppressed by society at large.

The rich are indeed a minority. However, they are a minority whom possess the vast majority of the wealth and property in the country. Taking larger portions of their proportionally larger income in order to assist the workers that make the products and sell the services they profit from can hardly be constituted as oppression. In fact, some might even call that justice.

Out of context.
I spoke specifically of raising one groups Taxes while lowering another. Regardless of which income tax bracket they fit in. You want to raise the rich's income tax 10% and raise the poorest brackets 1% then by all means(provided they go back down that way).
But to raise Taxes on on group and lowers another is the very definition of unequal treatment.

Out of context.
Not at all, apparently...
But to raise Taxes on on group and lowers another is the very definition of unequal treatment.
No shit. So what? My original argument stands. I see no qualm with lessening the income burden on those who are in truly need of a break, and increasing it on those who have plenty to spare.

Now, I would never endorse placing the upper tax rates at 90% and the middle-range ones at 1%. But raising the top bracket by 5% and lowering the bottom brackets by the same amount? No problem with that, considering the increasing hardship the lower brackets are facing in the world, and the increasing divide in wealth between the upper and lower classes.

Not at all, apparently...

No shit. So what? My original argument stands. I see no qualm with lessening the income burden on those who are in truly need of a break, and increasing it on those who have plenty to spare.

Now, I would never endorse placing the upper tax rates at 90% and the middle-range ones at 1%. But raising the top bracket by 5% and lowering the bottom brackets by the same amount? No problem with that, considering the increasing hardship the lower brackets are facing in the world, and the increasing divide in wealth between the upper and lower classes.

When times are hard they are hard forever one.
Also taxation is a means to raise revenue not a means to fix the income divide.

When times are hard they are hard forever one.
And yet there's a slight difference in hardship between the person making $30,000 a year, struggling to pay the mortgage and afford health care, food, etc., and the person making $250,000 a year, who might have to cut back, but who can generally afford all of the above. Really, that's just common sense. Don't waste both our time by making asanine arguments like that.
Also taxation is a means to raise revenue not a means to fix the income divide.
I'm not proposing we "fix" the income divide; rather, that we change taxation so that the way revenue is collected is fairer proportional to those paying. In other words, that we collect an appropriate amount of revenue based upon income, which might naturally entail lowering tax rates for the bottom brackets, and increasing tax rates for the upper brackets.

Now, I would never endorse placing the upper tax rates at 90% and the middle-range ones at 1%. But raising the top bracket by 5% and lowering the bottom brackets by the same amount? No problem with that,, except the bottom bracket already pays about 0.3%, so you'd have to make it a negative tax rate.
The minimum wage is pretty much fully covered by the exemptions, and then you get deductions for whatever.


considering the increasing hardship the lower brackets are facing in the world,
And the upper brackets aren't? If anything, they face a lot more challenge. It's way harder to do a difficult job with overtiming, maintain your qualifications, and still have time with the family, keep up the house, and finally file these ridiculously long and stupid tax reports, than to simply sit out your 8 hours as a security guard watching TV and go back to sleep in your trailer.

, except the bottom bracket already pays about 0.3%, so you'd have to make it a negative tax rate.
Notice how I said "brackets?" I wasn't being specific as to any one bracket, just laying out a hypothetical.


And the upper brackets aren't? If anything, they face a lot more challenge. It's way harder to do a difficult job with overtiming, maintain your qualifications, and still have time with the family, keep up the house, and finally file these ridiculously long and stupid tax reports, than to simply sit out your 8 hours as a security guard watching TV and go back to sleep in your trailer.
This has to be the most laughably ridiculous construction of reality that I've ever read.

I barely know where to begin. You really want to tell me that poor people just go to work for eight hours and then go home "to their trailers?" You do realize that the average poor individual has to work far more than 8 hours a day just to make enough money to afford food and rent?

You really want to tell me that people whom have to parse every penny just to afford basic necessities, putting in 60+ hours a week just to get by, who have families of their own (which you apparently believe is something that only the rich have) to feed, clothe, and sustain -- you really want to tell me those people have it worse than those who can afford plasma screen TVs and gym memberships?

Of course the rich put in long hours too, but the fact that they can afford luxuries unthinkable to the people who have to scramble just to afford basic necessities shows a clear inequality in hardship.

I feel strange having to defend something that is so elementary and common sense.

Notice how I said "brackets?" I wasn't being specific as to any one bracket, just laying out a hypothetical.
The bottom bracket was just the most outstanding example. The point stands: the lowest brackets already barely pay any tax at all, so any noticeably lower would make them tax-exempt altogether. Which is not how our society works. If they don't pay tax, why do we need them in this country?


I barely know where to begin. You really want to tell me that poor people just go to work for eight hours and then go home "to their trailers?" You do realize that the average poor individual has to work far more than 8 hours a day just to make enough money to afford food and rent?
Food at Walmart is the cheapest in almost the whole damn world. People in the third world pay more to stuff their stomachs.
You don't pay rent for a trailer, you tow it from a scrapyard, together with an old Camaro, which you have now sold as it has appreciated.

And if you work far more than 8 hrs/day, at a proper job, not a security guard - say, what about construction or plumbing? - and don't overspend, you'll very quickly be no longer poor.



You really want to tell me that people whom have to parse every penny just to afford basic necessities, putting in 60+ hours a week just to get by, who have families of their own (which you apparently believe is something that only the rich have) to feed, clothe, and sustain -- you really want to tell me those people have it worse than those who can afford plasma screen TVs and gym memberships?
No, I want to tell you these people aren't putting in 60+ a week, unless they're working illegally. Either that, or they're far from parsing every penny.

US still has a minimum wage, you know. And it's, what, 7 bucks an hour, or 9 in WA? 60 a week, 50 weeks. That's $21,000-$24,000 a year. Not luxurious, but not "just to afford basic necessities". Heck, *I* spend less on my basic necessities. My groceries/drinks/other essentials bill is under 300 a week.
There was a time when I had to live at under $250 a week - the whole budget. AND I had to afford not just food and beer, but paper and textbooks, and other student expenses. Well, it wasn't much fun, but it's far from terrible.

And there even was a time - very recently - when I lived in way worse conditions than any of these white trash imagine, and I had to work 90 hours a week. NINETY fucking hours. Occasionally more, that's the average. And it was far from an easy burger-flipping work. Now, that was bad. Yet you'd still say that I was better off than trailer trash, just because I had a higher pay, right?


Of course the rich put in long hours too, but the fact that they can afford luxuries unthinkable to the people who have to scramble just to afford basic necessities shows a clear inequality in hardship.
Please. What luxuries? A house, yes, but that's it. Otherwise, you simply get all the same, but a bit nicer. So, instead of an old bulky 29" CRT TV (that costs, what, $50 now), the middle class has a slim good-looking 40" plasma. Big deal. Yeah, that totally revolutionizes the life. That's way eliminates all the hardship putting in longer hours at no overtime pay, and living through tremendous stress at work, and having no choice in the matter, for that job you are afraid to lose. Sure.

The bottom bracket was just the most outstanding example. The point stands: the lowest brackets already barely pay any tax at all, so any noticeably lower would make them tax-exempt altogether.
That is an option, and a decent one considering the fact that many people in lower tax brackets need every penny they can spare. Nevertheless, I wasn't just referring to the lowest brackets -- I was referring to any of the lower tax brackets that could use a tax cut, including ones that would still pay taxes after such a cut.


Which is not how our society works. If they don't pay tax, why do we need them in this country?
I would love to see how society would function without people performing low-end jobs at retail stores, restaurants, gas stations, etc. Tell me, would anyone from the middle or upper classes give up their white collar jobs so that there would be someone to pump their gas, serve them food, etc.? I would doubt it. The lower classes perform a vital function in society; that is undeniable. The economy would collapse without them.


Food at Walmart is the cheapest in almost the whole damn world. People in the third world pay more to stuff their stomachs.
Now let's follow your logic all the way through: why do people shop at places where the goods are so cheap? Could it be that their income is so low that that is their only option? Ah...yes. The full picture.

Comparing poor in industrial nations to the poor in the third world makes little sense, when one considers the disparity in purchasing power between the first and third world.

You don't pay rent for a trailer, you tow it from a scrapyard, together with an old Camaro, which you have now sold as it has appreciated.
Wow. Just wow.

Even if someone could find a place to tow a trailer from, and even if they could afford the trailer, where do you think they would tow it to? A parking lot? The side of a road? Well that wouldn't exactly be legal, now would it? No, they have to move to a trailer park...which charges rent.


And if you work far more than 8 hrs/day, at a proper job, not a security guard - say, what about construction or plumbing? - and don't overspend, you'll very quickly be no longer poor.
Evidence? Social mobility doesn't happen magically. People without college degrees or high school diploma's can't exactly climb the social ladder. And when one is struggling to make it day by day, one doesn't have the option of saving up for college.


No, I want to tell you these people aren't putting in 60+ a week, unless they're working illegally. Either that, or they're far from parsing every penny.
Um...there's no legal limit on how much an adult can work per week, especially when one works more than one job (which is a necessity for many).

US still has a minimum wage, you know. And it's, what, 7 bucks an hour, or 9 in WA? 60 a week, 50 weeks. That's $21,000-$24,000 a year. Not luxurious, but not "just to afford basic necessities". Heck, *I* spend less on my basic necessities. My groceries/drinks/other essentials bill is under 300 a week.
There was a time when I had to live at under $250 a week - the whole budget. AND I had to afford not just food and beer, but paper and textbooks, and other student expenses. Well, it wasn't much fun, but it's far from terrible.
$20,000 a year. Factor in rent payments, food, child care expenses, not to mention the fact that the average family health plan costs $12,000, and you're left with very little to nothing left over, not to mention having to forego many essentials (such as health insurance).

As a student, I'm assuming you were in college. Either you had assistance from your folks, or you were living on loans. If the latter, then you were expecting to receive a decent-paying job in the future to pay off such loans. The working poor really don't have that option.

And there even was a time - very recently - when I lived in way worse conditions than any of these white trash imagine, and I had to work 90 hours a week. NINETY fucking hours. Occasionally more, that's the average. And it was far from an easy burger-flipping work. Now, that was bad. Yet you'd still say that I was better off than trailer trash, just because I had a higher pay, right?
90 hours a week...didn't you just say that anyone working 60+ hours a week must be working illegally?

You say that was bad...So why don't you have empathy for people who must live in horrible conditions their whole lives?


Please. What luxuries? A house, yes, but that's it. Otherwise, you simply get all the same, but a bit nicer. So, instead of an old bulky 29" CRT TV (that costs, what, $50 now), the middle class has a slim good-looking 40" plasma. Big deal. Yeah, that totally revolutionizes the life. That's way eliminates all the hardship putting in longer hours at no overtime pay, and living through tremendous stress at work, and having no choice in the matter, for that job you are afraid to lose. Sure.
I never said the middle class have even it easy, nor did I say the same about the rich. In fact, I explicitly stated that rich people put in hard work too. It's just that the fact that one class can afford luxuries -- like a plasma screen TV -- while the other cannot even afford health insurance shows, once again, a disparity in hardship between the classes.

Really, your incapability to grasp easy facts -- that the working poor have it harder than the middle and upper classes, that life is difficult for people living on minimum wage, that poor people cannot afford many basic necessities -- tells me that something is seriously wrong with the way you've been educated. This is elementary, 2+2 stuff, which could have only been reversed due to some serious propaganda. Tell me, where did you grow up, go to school, and what were your influences? I'm curious as to who or what indoctrinated you into this strange belief system.

my retort
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h45WnW0ASFY

Aerosmith did a much better version of that song.

That is an option, and a decent one considering the fact that many people in lower tax brackets need every penny they can spare.
Everyone needs every penny they can spare. The demands scale up together with the earnings.


I would love to see how society would function without people performing low-end jobs at retail stores, restaurants, gas stations, etc. Gas stations are all self-service now anyway.
As for retail, well, there is one option. Japanese companies build excellent, versatile, reliable and affordable automated retail systems. They range from simple vending machines that sell *everything* from food and clothes to sex toys and cell phones, to advanced Mitsubishi robotic systems that can in a few minutes deliver you a full basket of goods you choose - quicker than if you went shopping yourself.

Of course, someone still needs to change the oil and wipe the floors. I'm not saying we don't need the lower class. It's just that we should never overestimate the need for it. And most importantly, it's replaceable. So if you don't have enough, big deal, open the border and import some Mexicans. The lower class is a liquid asset - you don't hold on to it, you just import and export according to the current need.
As you can see, there's this other option too.


Now let's follow your logic all the way through: why do people shop at places where the goods are so cheap? Could it be that their income is so low that that is their only option?
Better still, why do I shop in the same places, along with people earning ten times less than me?

Could it be that these places sell quality products for bargain prices, lowering the cost of living and improving the quality of life for everyone?

More importantly, even if you were right, why should I sponsor them to shop in a posh place? It's not only acceptable that they have to shop in cheap places, it's exactly how it should be.
Whether we have an obligation to provide the poor with a way to survive is debatable. Whether we should provide them with enough money to not care about prices is not.


Comparing poor in industrial nations to the poor in the third world makes little sense, when one considers the disparity in purchasing power between the first and third world.
And that disparity is...? 'Cause according to the official PPP, it's within two times for most of the planet.
Food often costs more in poor countries than in Walmart. Clothes cost the same. Industrial goods are way cheaper in the first world.


Even if someone could find a place to tow a trailer from, and even if they could afford the trailer, where do you think they would tow it to? A parking lot? The side of a road? Well that wouldn't exactly be legal, now would it? No, they have to move to a trailer park...which charges rent.
Oh now the white trash cares about legality, am I dreaming or what?
But okay, if the trailer part charges rent, how high can it be, $50 a month? $200 with full utilities? Still way lower than anything along the lines of an apartment.


Evidence? Social mobility doesn't happen magically. People without college degrees or high school diploma's can't exactly climb the social ladder.
Why don't you have a high school diploma? It's free.
Evidence? Look at how much does a builder, a plumber, an electrician, any other non-burger-flipper blue-collar earns. Many white-collars could be envious. And it takes no steenking college diplomas.


Um...there's no legal limit on how much an adult can work per week, especially when one works more than one job (which is a necessity for many).
No, but there's a lower limit on how much they have to be paid per hour.


Factor in rent payments, food, child care expenses, not to mention the fact that the average family health plan costs $12,000,
And the average car costs $30,000. You point is?


As a student, I'm assuming you were in college. Either you had assistance from your folks, or you were living on loans.
Neither. I had a room at my home, but that's it.
I was working part-time to provide for myself and all the expenses. That's in addition to the work involved in getting one of the hardest degrees to learn.


If the latter, then you were expecting to receive a decent-paying job in the future to pay off such loans. The working poor really don't have that option.
Actually, this option - they do have. Jobs pay the same whether you used to be a non-working poor or not. And you're hired the same if you have the right degree whether your parents were poor or middle-class.


90 hours a week...didn't you just say that anyone working 60+ hours a week must be working illegally?
You say that was bad...So why don't you have empathy for people who must live in horrible conditions their whole lives?
Because while it was bad, it was necessary.
And yes, it was legal. I was serving the duty to my country as a lieutenant aboard a Navy vessel.

Which brings me to the question - these poor-just-scrapping-by - why don't they just enlist into the armed forces?

Even as an enlisted, you'll start off with a better wage, and in 3-5 years you'll be paid 40 to 50 grand a year - surefire. You say, you have to support your family? You get extra pay for one, and since you're not really spending much while serving, you can send it all home. And in 10 years you're looking at joining the "rich" you're cursing so much.

Over a million people in US who could easily be middle-class have chosen an enlisted career for their life.
Are the poor too good for this? Is it against the Welfare Leech Code of Honour to do some service to your country in exchange for the money it's giving you?



Tell me, where did you grow up, go to school, and what were your influences? I'm curious as to who or what indoctrinated you into this strange belief system.
I grew up somewhere and went to a very regular public school. No fancy schools, no posh faggot league colleges.
My influences were having to work my way up from the lowest, hardest work. I have never got to know what the teenager allowance is, for I never got any. I've been working since well below the minimum legal age. And I didn't have the luxury of that being an easy burger-flipping job, it was hard manual labor. But one where I got to learn things.
Oh, and how many people here didn't have their first car bought for them by the parents? I didn't even think of that, and had to do with a bike for quite a while. Teaches you to appreciate safe driving when you have no airbags and crumple zones, by the way.

So I got the full package, pretty much. I know it's hard below. But it's no easier in the middle. You get to live better, but not easier. And I know for myself that most of the people in the middle deserve what they earn. And I know I don't feel any desire to give my hard-earned money to people who consider themselves above enlisting, learning a job, or bothering to provide for themselves in any other way.

, except the bottom bracket already pays about 0.3%, so you'd have to make it a negative tax rate.
The minimum wage is pretty much fully covered by the exemptions, and then you get deductions for whatever.



And the upper brackets aren't? If anything, they face a lot more challenge. It's way harder to do a difficult job with overtiming, maintain your qualifications, and still have time with the family, keep up the house, and finally file these ridiculously long and stupid tax reports, than to simply sit out your 8 hours as a security guard watching TV and go back to sleep in your trailer.

Yes, that's almost the same as worrying about keeping a roof over your head and food on the table. Those of us in the top 5% will just have to cry into our 70-inch televisions while we sit in the extra rooms in our homes and look out at cars that have way, way more room than we need.

Seriously, you're trying compare having a difficult life to having a difficult job. They aren't the same. Poor people don't just not have the niceties, they have worse medical care, they have worse nutrition. They quite literally have not just a lesser quality of life, but less life.

But, yeah, you're right, I'm sure they would never trade that for 'ridiculously long and stupid tax reports'. Incidentally, what rich person is doing their own taxes? Seriously. It's such a tiny cost to have someone do it for you.

*snip*

Oh, I see, you're just bullshitting. I took you serious for a minute, but reading that last post, you're not. Sorry, I didn't get it at first.

And yet there's a slight difference in hardship between the person making $30,000 a year, struggling to pay the mortgage and afford health care, food, etc., and the person making $250,000 a year, who might have to cut back, but who can generally afford all of the above. Really, that's just common sense. Don't waste both our time by making asanine arguments like that.

I'm not proposing we "fix" the income divide; rather, that we change taxation so that the way revenue is collected is fairer proportional to those paying. In other words, that we collect an appropriate amount of revenue based upon income, which might naturally entail lowering tax rates for the bottom brackets, and increasing tax rates for the upper brackets.

If everyone pays the same percentage then how si that not fair.
people who make 80% of the income would pay 80% of the taxes.

"He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain." - Otto von Bismarck


Pretty much sums up the thread in my eyes. The man was onto something. Some of the ideas here are a direct path to economic disaster. If one doesn´t want to live in an African third world hellhole, one doesn´t oppress the upper/upper-middle class. Zimbabwe under Mugabe learned that the hard way. As did the former USSR.

I just read 'Grapes of Wrath'. Apart from the fact that I didn't quite expect it to end how it did, need I say more?

If everyone pays the same percentage then how si that not fair.
people who make 80% of the income would pay 80% of the taxes.
The more money you have, the less satisfaction the additional dollar brings. Give ten dollars to a hobo, and he'll be pretty happy, that's more than enough to buy a cheap meal. If I offered it to a billionaire, it might not be worth the effort to move his hand to accept.

The more money you have, the less satisfaction the additional dollar brings. Give ten dollars to a hobo, and he'll be pretty happy, that's more than enough to buy a cheap meal. If I offered it to a billionaire, it might not be worth the effort to move his hand to accept.

Laws are not meant to equalize happiness they are meant to be applied equally.

If everyone pays the same percentage then how si that not fair.
people who make 80% of the income would pay 80% of the taxes.

You know you talk about fair. Poor people don't extract the same level of return from this country that the rich do. Rich people have better access to government. Rich people have better access to medical care. Rich people benefit more from our economy (which is why they're rich).

The rich in America live better, longer, and with more freedom. Flat taxes do nothing to address this. When you are just as likely to starve to death when you're rich and when you're poor THEN it will be fair.

Laws are not meant to equalize happiness they are meant to be applied equally.

Really? So I have to obey the speed limit as often as you if I don't drive? Why is it that I get to drive faster on some roads than others. THAT'S NOT FAIR!! Or is it possible, the fair and equal do not mean the same thing?

Really? So I have to obey the speed limit as often as you if I don't drive? Why is it that I get to drive faster on some roads than others. THAT'S NOT FAIR!! Or is it possible, the fair and equal do not mean the same thing?
The example kind of confused me, but the bolded part is very true. The government treats many people very differently, but not (we hope) unfairly. To presume an equality which doesn't exist isn't the same thing as denying anyone special privileges, it's okaying inequality just because it wasn't created by the government.

Everyone needs every penny they can spare. The demands scale up together with the earnings.
Really? So as one's income goes up, so do the costs of basic needs? A person making $20,000 a year might struggle to pay rent that and feed one's children, but never fear -- someone making $200,000 a year will automatically have his or her living expenses adjusted so that he or she will have the same amount of trouble paying rent?

You mix up "wants" with "needs." One's needs remain fixed in price, regardless of income level. If one requires $100 a week in food to survive (hypothetically), one will find it easier to afford food if one makes $200,000 a year compared to if one makes $20,000 a year. For the person making $20,000 a year, parsing pennies occurs in order to meet these needs. For the person maing $200,000 a year, the need for parsing pennies comes when he or she spends more than he or she can afford on non-essential items, such as buying a house with a mortgage out of his orher price range, or buying an expensive sport's convertible that he or she cannot afford. Therefore, for poor individuals, parsing pennies comes out of basic necessity; for the rich, parsing pennies occurs due to budget irresponsibility. So it stands to reason that the poor face greater hardship, considering that they must work and cut their personal spending in order to survive, while the rich must do so if they've failed to stay on a reasonable budget.

Gas stations are all self-service now anyway.
Really? One self-serves at the cash register as well?
As for retail, well, there is one option. Japanese companies build excellent, versatile, reliable and affordable automated retail systems. They range from simple vending machines that sell *everything* from food and clothes to sex toys and cell phones, to advanced Mitsubishi robotic systems that can in a few minutes deliver you a full basket of goods you choose - quicker than if you went shopping yourself.
....Until these amazing technological innovations become widespread and affordable, which they are not even close to being, then we will still need a working class.

Of course, someone still needs to change the oil and wipe the floors. I'm not saying we don't need the lower class. It's just that we should never overestimate the need for it. And most importantly, it's replaceable. So if you don't have enough, big deal, open the border and import some Mexicans. The lower class is a liquid asset - you don't hold on to it, you just import and export according to the current need.
As you can see, there's this other option too.
So you've conceded that the economy always needs a working class: you just propose importing foreigners and paying them shit wages because they know nothing better. What a humanitarian you are. Additionally, have you considered how much crime would spike if you displaced all of the citizens whom currently compromise the working class in favor of low-paid foreign workers? The costs to society due to widespread crime done out for sheer survival will far outweigh any savings due to said shit wages.


Better still, why do I shop in the same places, along with people earning ten times less than me?

Could it be that these places sell quality products for bargain prices, lowering the cost of living and improving the quality of life for everyone?
Which factors into our discussion how? As I said before, they shop their out of need: the middle and upper classes shop their out of convience and in the name of saving money. What's your point?

More importantly, even if you were right, why should I sponsor them to shop in a posh place? It's not only acceptable that they have to shop in cheap places, it's exactly how it should be.
Could you please provide an example of when I advocated that we subsidize the poor so that they may shop at "posh" places? You brought up the Wal-Mart example, and I used it to prove that the poor have no where else to shop but such bargain places, which thus is an example of my argument that they must struggle to afford necessities. How you extrapolated me calling for a program to allow the poor to shop elsewhere from that is beyond me.


And that disparity is...? 'Cause according to the official PPP, it's within two times for most of the planet.
Food often costs more in poor countries than in Walmart. Clothes cost the same. Industrial goods are way cheaper in the first world.
Uh...yeah. That was my point. The poor in the industrial world have it better off than the poor in the developing world, so comparing the two, as you did, is like comparing apples to oranges.


Oh now the white trash cares about legality, am I dreaming or what?
But okay, if the trailer part charges rent, how high can it be, $50 a month? $200 with full utilities? Still way lower than anything along the lines of an apartment.
Now you're just making an assumption with no facts or data to back it up whatsoever. Not really conducive to an educated argument.


Why don't you have a high school diploma? It's free.
Evidence? Look at how much does a builder, a plumber, an electrician, any other non-burger-flipper blue-collar earns. Many white-collars could be envious. And it takes no steenking college diplomas.
I'm sure those professions work well for many people. However, many working poor must find jobs immediately in order to pay for living expenses, and oftentimes this means accepting a job as a "burger flipper" or another similar profession. This is due to such jobs being the first ones available, or more importantly, the only places hiring. Additionally, women make up a larger demographic than men in the working class, and many employers wouldn't think of hiring a woman for the aforementioned "male" fields.


No, but there's a lower limit on how much they have to be paid per hour.
So?

And the average car costs $30,000. You point is?
Apples to oranges, once again. If one buys a car for $3,000, one that runs, then the car will serve its purpose, and one has no need for a $30,000 car. However, for someone making low wages, health insurance is either a) not even an option due to price ranges or outright rejection by an insurance company due one having a "pre-existing" medical condition or b) something they can only afford to a very limited amount, so they end up buying an insurance policy that covers so little that it isn't worth the monthly premium.


Neither. I had a room at my home, but that's it.
I was working part-time to provide for myself and all the expenses. That's in addition to the work involved in getting one of the hardest degrees to learn.
I'm assuming the military paid for your education. That really doesn't apply to people who don't have that option.

Actually, this option - they do have. Jobs pay the same whether you used to be a non-working poor or not. And you're hired the same if you have the right degree whether your parents were poor or middle-class.

Because while it was bad, it was necessary.
And yes, it was legal. I was serving the duty to my country as a lieutenant aboard a Navy vessel.

Which brings me to the question - these poor-just-scrapping-by - why don't they just enlist into the armed forces?

Even as an enlisted, you'll start off with a better wage, and in 3-5 years you'll be paid 40 to 50 grand a year - surefire. You say, you have to support your family? You get extra pay for one, and since you're not really spending much while serving, you can send it all home. And in 10 years you're looking at joining the "rich" you're cursing so much.

Over a million people in US who could easily be middle-class have chosen an enlisted career for their life.
Are the poor too good for this? Is it against the Welfare Leech Code of Honour to do some service to your country in exchange for the money it's giving you?
First of all, I never "cursed" the rich: just stated an objective fact that they have it easier than the poor. Something that a toddler could assert.

Secondly, I don't really see the justice in letting middle class and upper class people have the opportunity to get a job or to enlist, and forcing the lower class to enlist if they want a shot any kind of future. That's not freedom, that's compulsion.

Furthermore, many working class people cannot enlist. Many poor families need every member working and bringing in a constant income, and cannot afford to lose one member for any length of time.


I grew up somewhere and went to a very regular public school. No fancy schools, no posh faggot league colleges.
First of all, please keep the bigoted, slack-jawed ignorance to yourself.

As for your experience, good for you: you made something of yourself. But you have yet to demonstrate your assertion that there is any justice in an economic system that forces some people to scrape by to pay for their needs.

But you have yet to demonstrate your assertion that there is any justice in an economic system that forces some people to scrape by to pay for their needs.

Who needs justice in economic systems? Economies nearly always favour those who have the money, and who can survive them when they turn sour. Anyone trying to adjust this will fail because they work in this way and always will do. Let's embrace the system that we have, as it works for some of us.

Admittedly, there are those suffer through the current economy. I implore you, though, to find an example from any time in history after civilisation dawned where economies were fair. They aren't meant to be; they are designed to work as they do. Try designing a better one, please? We need people to turn out basic goods for next to no pay, and we need them to not have degrees and qualifications beyond their field of work, because they are the ones who pay for the middle and upper middle classes to send their children to better schools by the revenue that they will generate. Because of this, those children will grow up and discover the empirical cure for cancer and the secret to ending world poverty and who knows what else. They can be grateful for that as they get up at 6am to work 12 hours and collapse at the end of it. They have to live those lives to let the educated thrive and pass down the benefits in their own way. Doctors, likely to come from the educated breed, have THREE TIMES the drug and alcohol dependency rates of those in other professions. Is it only hard for those who work in factories?

Those aforementioned doctors will save the factory worker's child from an illness and will save the worker himself when he gets crushed by a machine. They will repay every bit of the work that goes into supporting them and we should all be grateful for what they can do.

Let me conclude: There's no such thing as economic justice. Deal with it.

I can end all poverty in this country without taxing anyone at all. Please indulge me. I have a very modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) for you all to read. If you will just follow that link, my plan shall become clear. :P

The title of this thread is the motto for some in my home state of Washington. The sign should read Tax the rich to death or kill the poor. Would have been more fitting. This was in regards to expanding health care to the "poor" in the state of Washington. Don't mind the near 10 billion budget shortfall our state is looking at in the next 2 year tax budget. Thank god the state can't run a true deficit like the fed's can. They unlike our federal government have to balance by law.

http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/1/196/19648.jpg


So the question I put out there for you to ponder is where is the cutoff point of being "rich". Second is what do you think the "fair share" is for the people you define as rich? Third, Should we go after corporations instead? How say you?

My personal definition of "rich" is when your passive income equals or exceeds the expenses of your lifestyle. This is also my definition of financial freedom.

I think that the rich should be treated the same as the poor or the ultra rich by our tax system. It seems strange that when we go to a store we are only asked to pay one price without the poor getting a discount or the rich getting a premium, yet it is somehow different when we talk about taxes.

I know there are some good reasons for progressive taxes. It is my understanding that it is an automatic way of implementing Keynesian economics. It just does not seem fair though. What really bothers me is that about half of Americans pay no federal taxes at all. If you are not paying the tax why should you have a say in how it is spent?

I do not see what good is achieved by going after corporations for money. Do you want to discourage businesses from incorporating? Would you be happier if we only had partnerships and sole proprietorships? That would pretty much end the stock market and I like having stock markets.

Really? So as one's income goes up, so do the costs of basic needs? A person making $20,000 a year might struggle to pay rent that and feed one's children, but never fear -- someone making $200,000 a year will automatically have his or her living expenses adjusted so that he or she will have the same amount of trouble paying rent?
Actually... often yes. Many people refuse to live to their means.


Therefore, for poor individuals, parsing pennies comes out of basic necessity; for the rich, parsing pennies occurs due to budget irresponsibility.
But what is basic necessity? Some will say it's a tiny trailer in the cheapest park, a bag of potatoes a week ($10 or so), and a bicycle to get around. Another will say it's a house with HVAC, a rich varied diet, and a car that's still covered by warranty.


Really? One self-serves at the cash register as well?
....Until these amazing technological innovations become widespread and affordable, which they are not even close to being, then we will still need a working class.
Yes, one self-serves at the "cash register" as well, by inserting his credit card into the slot.

These technological innovations are used massively in Japan and on a small scale throughout the world - because they're often cheaper than paying the shop clerks. Already.


So you've conceded that the economy always needs a working class: you just propose importing foreigners and paying them shit wages because they know nothing better. What a humanitarian you are.
No, I don't propose replacing them. I just say the working class is much more liquid than the middle and the professional upper-middle class. Ergo, if our economy changes in a way that fewer working class people are needed - let them go. If more are needed again, we can always get more.


Uh...yeah. That was my point. The poor in the industrial world have it better off than the poor in the developing world, so comparing the two, as you did, is like comparing apples to oranges.
So your point was that the standards of "basic necessity" differ in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th worlds, right?


Now you're just making an assumption with no facts or data to back it up whatsoever. Not really conducive to an educated argument.
Actually, wrong. I'm not making an assumption, I did a web search for the cost of a slip in a trailing park, and it's between $50 raw space to $200 full utilities. Includes an acre or two as well.


I'm sure those professions work well for many people. However, many working poor must find jobs immediately in order to pay for living expenses, and oftentimes this means accepting a job as a "burger flipper" or another similar profession. This is due to such jobs being the first ones available, or more importantly, the only places hiring. Additionally, women make up a larger demographic than men in the working class, and many employers wouldn't think of hiring a woman for the aforementioned "male" fields.
I've seen women working a wide range of non-service working class jobs. Maintenance staff, facility inspectors, interior builders, electricians, taxi drivers. All of these are reasonably well-paying jobs with a minimum of training required, and that training is often provided on the job.

And now you're moving to the sexism bit. Don't, please. Assuming a full family of two parents, one is the male. He can work full-time at a proper, non-burger, decently-paying blue collar job. Burger-flipping is for high-schoolers: they don't take temps for serious jobs. If you intend to stay, a world of possibilities opens up.


b) something they can only afford to a very limited amount, so they end up buying an insurance policy that covers so little that it isn't worth the monthly premium.
Yeah, I agree, the American healthcare system is more than flawed, it's broken. It's the fault of this middleman insurance system that health insurance has become a luxury. But well - you still can live without it. Just be careful not to get sick, and go to unlicensed doctors if you do get sick. Might have to cross to Mexico if it's serious.

If it gets really bad - well, you might not get as long a lifespan as the upper classes. But again, and I know I'll get under fire for this, a prolonged lifespan is a luxury of civilization, not a basic necessity. It's somewhat sad that our civilization chooses not to provide it on a universal basis, but then, on the other hand, commercial demand from the rich helps to propel it forward on a layered basis, ultimately filtering down to even the least fortunate.



I'm assuming the military paid for your education. That really doesn't apply to people who don't have that option.
You can always join the military. Or you can take a student loan, provided at a discount. And trust me, the military puts way more obligations on you in exchange for this than a loan does. You also have to pay it back way more - not a small fraction of the salary for your mere 40 hours a week, but a 168 hours a week stay with 90 hours of work, in dangerous and uncomfortable conditions, without a choice to bail out.
So if you're looking for cheap college, loan is the better option really, unless you happen to feel a desire to learn and do one of the same professions that the has a deficit of. Alternately, you can go for corporate contracts.


Secondly, I don't really see the justice in letting middle class and upper class people have the opportunity to get a job or to enlist, and forcing the lower class to enlist if they want a shot any kind of future. That's not freedom, that's compulsion.
Enlisting is not the only option. It's one of the options. There are other blue-collar jobs that pay well. And if nothing else, there's the military.

"It's compulsion"? Every job is a compulsion. I'll lose half my income if I switch to a similar job I'm not quite as good at, and nine tenths if I switch to one that doesn't use my skills. I have to follow on my degree, and do my service, if I want a shot at any kind of future. Is it not compulsion?


Furthermore, many working class people cannot enlist. Many poor families need every member working and bringing in a constant income, and cannot afford to lose one member for any length of time.
You don't "lose" the member when he enlists. On the contrary, he starts to send home a lot more money than he would as a minimum-wager. That's not to mention the instant enlistment bonus you can sometimes get.
And right off the bat, as a green recruit, you'll be getting $34k, or $37k with a family. Mind you, 90% of this money can be easily sent home to your family.
http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx

You get a future both for yourself and for your family. All you need is to actually work hard, at a truly full-time, dangerous job - not just flip burgers for 12 hours and moan that you should earn more than a doctor because burgers are heavier than syringes.



First of all, please keep the bigoted, slack-jawed ignorance to yourself.
Why? If you can take a shot at the middle class, why shouldn't I take a shot at the upper class?

As for justice, replied well by Oxymoronicae. It's not about justice, it's about getting the best performance out of the nation.

Who needs justice in economic systems? Economies nearly always favour those who have the money, and who can survive them when they turn sour. Anyone trying to adjust this will fail because they work in this way and always will do. Let's embrace the system that we have, as it works for some of us.

Admittedly, there are those suffer through the current economy. I implore you, though, to find an example from any time in history after civilisation dawned where economies were fair. They aren't meant to be; they are designed to work as they do. Try designing a better one, please? We need people to turn out basic goods for next to no pay, and we need them to not have degrees and qualifications beyond their field of work, because they are the ones who pay for the middle and upper middle classes to send their children to better schools by the revenue that they will generate. Because of this, those children will grow up and discover the empirical cure for cancer and the secret to ending world poverty and who knows what else. They can be grateful for that as they get up at 6am to work 12 hours and collapse at the end of it. They have to live those lives to let the educated thrive and pass down the benefits in their own way. Doctors, likely to come from the educated breed, have THREE TIMES the drug and alcohol dependency rates of those in other professions. Is it only hard for those who work in factories?

Those aforementioned doctors will save the factory worker's child from an illness and will save the worker himself when he gets crushed by a machine. They will repay every bit of the work that goes into supporting them and we should all be grateful for what they can do.

Let me conclude: There's no such thing as economic justice. Deal with it.

Logical fallacy: appeal to tradition. Just because most world economies have been unjust throughout history does not make them the only, nor the best option.

Furthermore, there are plenty examples of reform measures that have made life better for workers and the middle class. To name a few: unions, Social Security, universal health care programs, public education...the list could go on. With each new measure, incomes and standards of living have risen across the board. Therefore, it stands to reason that economies can be more accomodating of people other than the upper class, if only the political will is present. So not only is your argument one giant logical fallacy, it is also disprovable.

I can end all poverty in this country without taxing anyone at all. Please indulge me. I have a very modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) for you all to read. If you will just follow that link, my plan shall become clear. :P

If the rich eat all the poor then who are they going to take advantage of in their sweatshops? The rich don't get rich because of the other rich people. The rich get rich off the backs of the middle and lower classes. Even the poor buy things.

Actually... often yes. Many people refuse to live to their means.
Dude. Seriously. Do I need to explain this again? As I already said, living within your means /=/ struggling to pay for basic necessities. It's such an elementary, common sense, first grade education concept that I'm astonished you can't understand it.


But what is basic necessity? Some will say it's a tiny trailer in the cheapest park, a bag of potatoes a week ($10 or so), and a bicycle to get around. Another will say it's a house with HVAC, a rich varied diet, and a car that's still covered by warranty.
Again, I've already covered this, and yet you make an argument I've already dismantled as if it's anything different than what you've already said.


Yes, one self-serves at the "cash register" as well, by inserting his credit card into the slot.
:rolleyes:Jesus...Should I? Ugh...I guess. There are items sold inside, right? And they require a clerk? Sigh...Why are we arguing about whether or not there needs to be a clerk at a gas station?

These technological innovations are used massively in Japan and on a small scale throughout the world - because they're often cheaper than paying the shop clerks. Already.
Right, and private industry has decided that it really cares about the workers and would rather pay them to do this work instead of letting machines doing for cheaper. Right.


No, I don't propose replacing them. I just say the working class is much more liquid than the middle and the professional upper-middle class. Ergo, if our economy changes in a way that fewer working class people are needed - let them go. If more are needed again, we can always get more.
Once again, how humanitarian of you.

So your pont was that the standards of "basic necessity" differ in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th worlds, right?
No, only that people in the 1st world have an easier time getting basic necessities than people in any of the other worlds. Someone poor in the United States might have trouble affording rent and food, but someone in the third world might have trouble even finding clean drinking water. Therefore, trrying to compare the poor in the developed world to the poor in the developing world is, for the most part, a futility.


Actually, wrong. I'm not making an assumption, I did a web search for the cost of a slip in a trailing park, and it's between $50 raw space to $200 full utilities. Includes an acre or two as well.
Never mind that trailer park prices fluctuate based on location. Secondly, your source? Thirdly, even with a cheap trailer, there are still other costs of living, including food, child care, health care, etc., which are still far outside of a poor person's range.

I've seen women working a wide range of non-service working class jobs. Maintenance staff, facility inspectors, interior builders, electricians, taxi drivers. All of these are reasonably well-paying jobs with a minimum of training required, and that training is often provided on the job.
Great, but you've ignored a number of points. Namingly, that a) such jobs are in many cases not enough to support a family, so they require a person to work more than one job for many hours a week; b) such jobs often don't provide health benefits, which leaves a person uninsured; c) even if such jobs are all well-paying (which they're not), they are not always available, and many of the working poor take the first job offered out of sheer necessity.

And now you're moving to the sexism bit. Don't, please. Assuming a full family of two parents, one is the male. He can work full-time at a proper, non-burger, decently-paying blue collar job. Burger-flipping is for high-schoolers: they don't take temps for serious jobs. If you intend to stay, a world of possibilities opens up.
Except that there are a large number of single mothers in poverty with no second parent to help them out.

Furthermore, you mentioned construction work. Don't try to tell me that there is no sexism present in that field.

Yeah, I agree, the American healthcare system is more than flawed, it's broken. It's the fault of this middleman insurance system that health insurance has become a luxury. But well - you still can live without it. Just be careful not to get sick, and go to unlicensed doctors if you do get sick. Might have to cross to Mexico if it's serious.
Okay, so the working poor should all try really hard not to get injured on the job, come down with a genetic condition such as diabetes, Crohn's disease, or hypertension, or contract an illness because they couldn't pay for their vaccinations. Gotcha.

If it gets really bad - well, you might not get as long a lifespan as the upper classes. But again, and I know I'll get under fire for this, a prolonged lifespan is a luxury of civilization, not a basic necessity. It's somewhat sad that our civilization chooses not to provide it on a universal basis, but then, on the other hand, commercial demand from the rich helps to propel it forward on a layered basis, ultimately filtering down to even the least fortunate.
Yes, it is said that due to greed and an absence of political will, we have not provided such benefits to the lower classes. I'm glad you picked up on the tragedy of the situation. I'll ignore your last sentence where you contradict yourself.


You can always join the military. Or you can take a student loan, provided at a discount. And trust me, the military puts way more obligations on you in exchange for this than a loan does. You also have to pay it back way more - not a small fraction of the salary for your mere 40 hours a week, but a 168 hours a week stay with 90 hours of work, in dangerous and uncomfortable conditions, without a choice to bail out.
So if you're looking for cheap college, loan is the better option really, unless you happen to feel a desire to learn and do one of the same professions that the has a deficit of. Alternately, you can go for corporate contracts.
Except many people need to stay home and work in order to help support their family. Furthermore, many poor people have bad credit, and will find it hard to obtain a loan.


"It's compulsion"? Every job is a compulsion. I'll lose half my income if I switch to a similar job I'm not quite as good at, and nine tenths if I switch to one that doesn't use my skills. I have to follow on my degree, and do my service, if I want a shot at any kind of future. Is it not compulsion?
Yes, every job is a compulsion, but forcing someone into military service as a last resort is not exactly moral.

Why? If you can take a shot at the middle class, why shouldn't I take a shot at the upper class?
I didn't take a shot at anyone, all I did was point out that the poor have it worse off than any of the other classes. How does that count as "taking a shot" at anyone?

As for justice, replied well by Oxymoronicae. It's not about justice, it's about getting the best performance out of the nation.
So it's about macrogrowth over human benefit, in other words. In other words, it's about benefiting the upper class at the expense of the lower class. Frankly, that's just sick.

Tax the Rich, cause they can afford it and it would make the country richer and get a better economy. The Poor would be killed and that could threaten you population and people could start to move out cause they might think you are taking away their human rights of citizens of they're nation

Really? One self-serves at the cash register as well?

Why, usually at the gas station, I don't even go to the cash register. I just bust out the card and pay at the pump.

Oh, and the grocery store has self-serve cash registers as well. In reality, from my experience, cashiers are going to be nothing more than a combination of tech support/security guards within a few years. We're going to need fewer of them, but the one's we have will have greater expertise and actually be paid more.

In fact, I know a few gas stations where you can order and pay for food and drink at the pump...