'Gun loving liberals' are welcome to the debate, but who can they vote for?

[Ironhippie]

^^^
^^^
Thanks for the candid response. I would agree that Govt needs to get out of marriage. If gay people want to get married let em. I could never support a pro choice stance....sure there is going to be instances when its necessary, but just because someone makes a mistake and is looking for a quick escape isnt a good enough reason to commit murder. Theres alternatives. I also agree on the Pot issue...legalization I believe would reduce crime and cause a reduction in the use of other drugs. As far as rich people need to pay more taxes...why? So Govt can spend it or give it to someone else as they see fit...........Thats just UN American there. I pulled up Romney for 2009 and 10. He made Charitable contribution of 7M and paid another 6.2M in federal taxes.....is that not enough? Who cares what his rate was. Do you really think he should pay 10M or 15M of the 21M he made? Who are the Dems to decide how much of a persons money, that theyve earned, is enough for them. Thats what socialist are about. I do appreciate you responding honestly to my question.

 

[MisterChester]

^^^
^^^
Thanks for the candid response. I would agree that Govt needs to get out of marriage. If gay people want to get married let em. I could never support a pro choice stance....sure there is going to be instances when its necessary, but just because someone makes a mistake and is looking for a quick escape isnt a good enough reason to commit murder. Theres alternatives. I also agree on the Pot issue...legalization I believe would reduce crime and cause a reduction in the use of other drugs. As far as rich people need to pay more taxes...why? So Govt can spend it or give it to someone else as they see fit...........Thats just UN American there. I pulled up Romney for 2009 and 10. He made Charitable contribution of 7M and paid another 6.2M in federal taxes.....is that not enough? Who cares what his rate was. Do you really think he should pay 10M or 15M of the 21M he made? Who are the Dems to decide how much of a persons money, that theyve earned, is enough for them. Thats what socialist are about. I do appreciate you responding honestly to my question.

My issue is not about the amount taxed, more so the percentage. Why should someone who is much richer than I am pay a lower percentage than me? I see it as I have an income, and I spent it on things I need like food, rent, car insurance, etc. Rich people (when I say rich I mean people who make a million or more a year, not just having a million) have these costs too pretty much, but the amount spent is such a small fraction of their income that it's negligible. To me around 50% of my income is spent on necessities. Millionaires that have publicly disclosed their tax rates are in the 10% to 20% range after deductions etc. , while mine is closer to 33%. I think that needs to be changed. The middle class deserve those kinds of rates. Democrats and republicans in the middle class alike would be happy with that. Of course I commend them for their charitable contributions, and that deserves a deduction of some kind. Like I said, amounts are irrelevant, it's the percentage, and this is why I'm open to the idea of a flat tax.

i certainly do appreciate your attitude about asking me instead of just bashing what I think. I can tell I probably don't agree with you on some things but you've been polite about it. I can see where you come from, and I am concerned too on how money is spent. Would it bother you as much if the wealthy got taxed more but it was spent in a way you agree with?

 

[indiucky]

Though now you have my curious, at what age ought I stop being liberal? It’s good to know what I’ve got laying ahead of me. :P Money does seem to change a lot of folks’ political views, though, and I always thought that kind of curious; cynicism has an easy answer for it, though I’d hope it would be more complex than that. I will say, though, there are few ways to quicker drive home the point that police are reactionary at best than being on the wrong end of a mugging. They can take all the notes they want, but the odds of anything coming of it are miniscule. In this case, the boy scouts got it right: Be Prepared.

If you are a "Classic" Liberal there is no need nor time frame in which to change...We have a few "Classic" Liberals here on the forum and while I may disagree with them on some issues they are "Intellectually Honest" Liberals...I.E. They maintain a certain level of common sense and class about them during a debate and refrain from using terms like "Repuklican, "Faux news", "Teabaggers". "Sarah Palin is a dumb ____"(insert sexist slur here)etc....

I will give a couple of examples of a time when I began to see things differently...

Pro Choice/Pro Life-In my late teens to late twenties I was Pro Choice...I mean who I am I, a male, to tell a woman that she can't kill her baby if she wants to??? Afterall..It's in her belly? I maintained this belief until I got married....My wife and I unexpectantly became pregnant...After getting over the initial shock we became excited and then four months later we had a miscarriage...I saw that my wife grieved as if the child had been born and then died...It was at that moment that I began to look at abortion as a loss of life and became very Pro Life in my beliefs....

Unemployed Jewish Carpenter-At one time I scoffed at Him and His teachings...I sounded like some of the Evangelical Atheists we have here on INGO...I made snide comments about "imaginary tales from Desert Tribes" and "How can someone be so ignorant as to believe this rubbish?"...I read Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens (May God Rest his Soul), Penn Jillette, etc....And really thought I was smart (and a bit smug, there is no one as smug as an Atheist and no one as humble as an Former Atheist.). Over time the Historical evidence, first person accounts, different occurences in my life, etc...Made me see the error of my ways and I became a follower of the Unemployed Jewish Carpenter....Even though I am not even worthy to carry His sandals...(How did I do mods? If I check back in an hour and the post is still here I will know I was vague enough...)

Here is a Greg Gutfeld quote that I thought was kind of cute...Enjoy your journey and my sincere wish for you to continue to search for answers...

"When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they're doing so for purely selfish reasons. It's the human equivalent of a puppy dog's face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, “please lower my taxes” -- Greg"

 

[Ironhippie]

My issue is not about the amount taxed, more so the percentage. Why should someone who is much richer than I am pay a lower percentage than me? I see it as I have an income, and I spent it on things I need like food, rent, car insurance, etc. Rich people (when I say rich I mean people who make a million or more a year, not just having a million) have these costs too pretty much, but the amount spent is such a small fraction of their income that it's negligible. To me around 50% of my income is spent on necessities. Millionaires that have publicly disclosed their tax rates are in the 10% to 20% range after deductions etc. , while mine is closer to 33%. I think that needs to be changed. The middle class deserve those kinds of rates. Democrats and republicans in the middle class alike would be happy with that. Of course I commend them for their charitable contributions, and that deserves a deduction of some kind. Like I said, amounts are irrelevant, it's the percentage, and this is why I'm open to the idea of a flat tax.

i certainly do appreciate your attitude about asking me instead of just bashing what I think. I can tell I probably don't agree with you on some things but you've been polite about it. I can see where you come from, and I am concerned too on how money is spent. Would it bother you as much if the wealthy got taxed more but it was spent in a way you agree with?

Well instead of leaning left I would say you are a jealous socialist. Instead of doing the best you can your worried about what someone else is paying in taxes. I would bet that if a flat tax was adopted you would still be unhappy because the rich guy would still be rich and that just wouldnt be fair. I found a great example of our tax code and what your proposing described through 10 guys drinking beer. here it is:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer. ( ala people who dont pay any taxes getting refunds)
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

 

[Draco]

Im always fascinated with people such as yourself. When you say you lean to the left and agree with the Democratic party more than the GOP. What issues are those you lean left on? Really im curious. Is it expansion of the welfare state, larger Govt and greater income redistribution? Or maybe sinking billions into companies that claim to be able to provide an alternative energy source for the betterment of the environment but then go bankrupt. How about education reform....and the increase in taxes thats going to cause just so we can send an illegal to college and provide them with contraception to boot. Could it be that you really believe that socialized health care provided by the Govt is a good thing. Does leaning left mean that you support amnesty for illegals? Is it that you also believe in the collective? From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Are these some of the areas you lean left on? I really would like to understand people like you.

Not that you were aiming for me, but to pretty much everything you said the answer is the affirmative to varying degrees. Social security so effectively reduced the poverty rates of the elderly – and in so doing stimulated the economy – that the nation as a whole was made better; and, I ought to stress, this is to say nothing of that fact that people who are secure, at least to a base degree, against the prospect of freezing or starving to death are the same people who will go the entrepreneurial route, and some will be wild successes.

Do I believe the government ought to be able to invest in future technology? Yes, actually, I do. You’ll not that the fund that included Solyndra made money on the whole, first off; you’ll also find that the government has historically pushed innovation forward, intentionally or not. Much of the time is in the area of defense, but the same projects born of war – the Manhattan and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile projects, say – are the same the paved the way to nuclear energy, arguably the best solution for reducing carbon emissions, and the Apollo program. The advances made by NASA for Hubble trickle down to other applications in medicine, and so on and forth. Should the government go about it all willy-nilly? No, but you may do well to realize how much of everyday technology became possible or affordable only because the government was there pushing advances. Sometimes you need that non-profit generating body with vast resources to nudge technology ahead when the payoff is as of yet to be determined. (By and by, I have to ask: would it be better if the government paid more to Solyndra to prop it up after prospects dried up? I get confused by this, genuinely, because from your perspective [or my reading of it] is that the whole thing looked akin to a gamble; is it that the government gambled that annoys you, or is it that the government picked a loser?)

As for paying for in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, I don’t know what to tell you on that. Don’t know what it costs, but I am rather dubious that Indiana spent as much on that as we Indianapolis spent on building Lucas Oil Stadium. Which, you might notice, even the rationale for public funding involves the redistribution of wealth: sales tax goes up for all to generate more business for the Hilton folk? And even still, the tax benefits of increased ticket sales and potential Super Bowls rarely, if ever, amounts to the public investment. The cherry on top of this absurd sundae being that the NFL is a non-taxable entity. Just the same, I see your point to that account; high school is one thing and college another. Still, I’d ideally think college should be free for those who prove themselves worthy of the investment. Professionals make more money, those with higher incomes pay greater taxes, and I am willing to wager the increase in taxes paid over the productive life of the student would net more than the investment given. As a bonus, we’d have more doctors, engineers, and lawyers. (Okay, the lawyer thing sounds bad, but the ACLU, the EFF, and the NRA all require legal professionals to protect our liberties; they aren’t all leeches.)

I do believe in a single payer system for health care. It is cost-effective and it provides for all; if you want secondary insurance to further provide non-essential care, I don’t have a problem with the market providing that. Privatized medicine is a bloody nightmare and you’ll notice no other great nation does this; the money lost between insurance companies and doctor offices fighting on who is owed and how much is absurd. I believe it certainly beats the alternative of waiting for people to have a huge problem and then clog up the ER and run a far higher tab. Statins > post-heart attack care; better outcomes and cheaper investment.

As for amnesty for illegals? Well, that is tricky, I’ll confess. My family was not always in America and I’d wager the same goes for you. I believe there ought to be immigration, I believe the system as it stands today is a mess, and if people have been living here for 15 years, paying taxes (yes, some even pay income tax), and behaving then what do I care if they can stay? Promise to learn English, stay out of trouble, and I’ll welcome you to America. There will be a limit to how many people we can absorb, so this ideal may not hold in practice; but we’ll never sort the problem of current immigration if we can’t figure out how to handle the previous immigrants. Self-deportation is idiotic, uprooting otherwise law abiding, tax paying citizens who have been here for ages is bound to cause more problems than it solves. So, like I said, it is tricky.

As for the last bit, profoundly yes, I do believe that to be best. Yes, it reeks of Marxism-Leninism, but even those whose theories for a better society fail should not have every single concept tainted by the failure. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need; does it really not make sense to you? One should not expect the same performance from different things; each gives in accordance to what they can, and that binds us into a society. Attention or charity is more wisely spent where it does the greatest good than divided among all people equally, and so yes, to each according to their need. We are all equal in our rights, but not ability or circumstance. I always thought that was kind of the point of civilization, but maybe I’m wrong.

As for other issues, pro-choice is the way it ought to be, though I can respect other people’s thoughts on the matter so long as they do not go forcing their will on others. Like I said, I’m more libertarian when it comes to personal rights. So long as you aren’t doing harm to another that is not willing, it is not society’s business; at least, that is the general idea I’m after. I’m for legalizing and taxing marijuana and am ashamed of how the drug war has been perpetuated the benefits of the drug been held out of reach in favor for harsher medications. I’ve never touched the stuff, but even I know there is a world of difference in the risk/benefit tradeoff between marijuana and morphine; one will kill you if you take too much, even though it is an important tool in medicine, whereas the other is effectively safe at all doses, while having benefits to share. Yet the first is allowed while the other banned? It is a perversion of science and an injustice.

For me, It's not so much the issues. It's that Republican politicians just don't seem like they're very nice guys.

Yeah, there’s that too. Then again, it isn’t like the left is full of saints. Bill and Monica bother me known, but Edwards? It’s the problem of politics as a whole, maybe. I don’t know if it is power corrupting people or corrupt people being attracted to power, but the resulting mess is rather unfortunate.

Thanks for the candid response. I would agree that Govt needs to get out of marriage. If gay people want to get married let em.

Oh, right, I’m for that as well. I’ve never quite grasped how the right is against it. Abortion I can kind of get on the religious grounds and the right seeing to have more of the strongly religious crowd, but gay rights? God saw fit to give people free will, if you believe in that, and that ought to be enough. Small governments don’t meddle in such affairs, it seems to me that ought to be leading the charge /for/ gay marriage. I’d like the right a lot more if I could hold them to the limited government ideology; I may not always agree, but I get it. Too often it feels a little too “i after e”-esque given the string of exceptions that follow.

Thats just UN American there.

Unamerican is such a weird thought and so overused that it is nearly devoid of any real meaning. You do realize that tax rates have been far higher than they are now and yet the middle class swelled, corporations grew, and industry prospered, right? We may be a relatively young nation, but we’ve history enough that we’ve been a great many sides on a great many issues. If you don’t believe something is right, state your case; if you think it unfair, say so; if you find my view abhorrent, you’ve a right to say so (though not to be heard); but relying on un-American is just kind of weak from my perspective. It doesn’t turn me off of a thought like “libtard” or “teabagger”, but it always undermines an argument, even the good ones.

Anyway, thought I’d share while I had the chance. A good conversation is always welcome, you know?

 

[Draco]

Well instead of leaning left I would say you are a jealous socialist. Instead of doing the best you can your worried about what someone else is paying in taxes. I would bet that if a flat tax was adopted you would still be unhappy because the rich guy would still be rich and that just wouldnt be fair. I found a great example of our tax code and what your proposing described through 10 guys drinking beer. here it is:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer. ( ala people who dont pay any taxes getting refunds)
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

First, cute.

Second, here’s the snag: it overlooks how far the taxes have been reduced on the wealthy over the last few decades, especially with the preferential rate capital gains is afforded and carried interest is allowed. The income of a hedge fund manager should be taxed just the same as the guy flipping burger patties at McDonalds.

Third, it kind of glosses over how far inequality has gotten over the last few decades; when the richest is the richest by just 50%, that is not so much. When the richest is the richest by orders of magnitude, you start having problems. The affluent have captured most of the recovery and this holds true even at the highest points; the 90% get left by the 10%; the 99% get left by the 1%; and even the 99.9% get left be the 0.1%. I’m running short on time, but look at the ratio of pay from average worker to CEO; it has grown at a stupendous rate. (I’ll dig out stats later if I get a chance.)

The greater still problem, at least by my eye, is that the corporation paying the top guy’s wages is likely to have enough money to throw around, a la Citizens United and lobbyists, to get away with things that they ought not. Wealth often yields power and that power is often used to get yet more wealth; it is a fine system, except for all those on the other side having their voices drowned out. I’ll confess I’m now complicating the simplistic note of the anecdote, but it’s when all the factors start compounding that a system breaks down.

Still, it’s a cute anecdote.

 

[MisterChester]

jealous socialist

Unless you're some kind of expert on knowing what people are by the few given view points, I don't agree with that at all. I believe in capitalism, but like every other system of economy it has it's flaws. No such thing as a perfect economic system. And you missed my point entirely on percentages. It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a middle class issue. I never believed in trickle-down economics, it's a sham. I think middle-out economics works best.

 

[gravitas73]

^^^
^^^
Thanks for the candid response. I would agree that Govt needs to get out of marriage. If gay people want to get married let em. I could never support a pro choice stance....sure there is going to be instances when its necessary, but just because someone makes a mistake and is looking for a quick escape isnt a good enough reason to commit murder. Theres alternatives. I also agree on the Pot issue...legalization I believe would reduce crime and cause a reduction in the use of other drugs. As far as rich people need to pay more taxes...why? So Govt can spend it or give it to someone else as they see fit...........Thats just UN American there. I pulled up Romney for 2009 and 10. He made Charitable contribution of 7M and paid another 6.2M in federal taxes.....is that not enough? Who cares what his rate was. Do you really think he should pay 10M or 15M of the 21M he made? Who are the Dems to decide how much of a persons money, that theyve earned, is enough for them. Thats what socialist are about. I do appreciate you responding honestly to my question.

You seem to think income inequality is a good thing. That it gives someone goals to strive for, rewarding those that apply themselves and pull themselves up by their boot straps.

I don't think you realize just how many hard working middle class Americans lose their purchasing power because their wages and benefits have stagnated.

You may look at the government as being just some big nanny state out to give all these benefits to the poor, but don't seem to take into account the huge deals the government gives to the rich.

Take capital gains. A middle class family can't even afford to invest in the stock market other than maybe their 401k. There's nothing left at the end to try and benefit from the 15% tax on capital gains that the 1% like Warren Buffet and Romney get to enjoy.

Or oil subsidies. For every dollar we spend on a green subsidy, we spend another dollar, or more, on an oil subsidy. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.

40% of people on food stamps actually have a job already, and as you would expect they work for minimum wage or close to it. Those jobs are places like Wal-Mart, who pays as little as they can to maximize the profits of a family that inherited an international empire from their dad. So because Wal-Mart won't do the moral and responsible thing by paying their workers a living wage, the government has to come in and make up the difference. See you have all this hatred for the government for wanting to help, even if it means trimming off some of the Walton families' profits to help pay for it.. while seemingly not putting any of the blame on the cause.

Every entitlement we have today, we have as a result of Republican policies run rampant and ruining peoples lives. The people then respond in kind, and you get things like The New Deal and Social Security.

As for Romney, in 2011 he paid 2 mill on 13.6 mill income. His tax return was 379 pages long compared to 203 pages in 2010. If we are talking about UN-American, I think a good place to start would be the guy that needs 379 pages and off shore tax shelters to prevent him from having to give back to his country after he so callously pillaged it by buying companies and firing American workers to ship their jobs to China and make the company more profitable.. for him. It is disgusting a person like him ever got the nomination at all, but if your party is all about respecting greed at all costs, then he's the perfect candidate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Im always fascinated with people such as yourself. When you say you lean to the left and agree with the Democratic party more than the GOP. What issues are those you lean left on? Really im curious. Is it expansion of the welfare state, larger Govt and greater income redistribution? Or maybe sinking billions into companies that claim to be able to provide an alternative energy source for the betterment of the environment but then go bankrupt. How about education reform....and the increase in taxes thats going to cause just so we can send an illegal to college and provide them with contraception to boot. Could it be that you really believe that socialized health care provided by the Govt is a good thing. Does leaning left mean that you support amnesty for illegals? Is it that you also believe in the collective? From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Are these some of the areas you lean left on? I really would like to understand people like you.

Military, reduce the budget
Civil Rights, stay out of people's bedrooms
Environmental issues, let's not end up like China
Religion, why should govt care
Women's rights, their bodies their rules

 

[jamil]

My issue is not about the amount taxed, more so the percentage. Why should someone who is much richer than I am pay a lower percentage than me? I see it as I have an income, and I spent it on things I need like food, rent, car insurance, etc. Rich people (when I say rich I mean people who make a million or more a year, not just having a million) have these costs too pretty much, but the amount spent is such a small fraction of their income that it's negligible. To me around 50% of my income is spent on necessities. Millionaires that have publicly disclosed their tax rates are in the 10% to 20% range after deductions etc. , while mine is closer to 33%. I think that needs to be changed. The middle class deserve those kinds of rates. Democrats and republicans in the middle class alike would be happy with that. Of course I commend them for their charitable contributions, and that deserves a deduction of some kind. Like I said, amounts are irrelevant, it's the percentage, and this is why I'm open to the idea of a flat tax.

i certainly do appreciate your attitude about asking me instead of just bashing what I think. I can tell I probably don't agree with you on some things but you've been polite about it. I can see where you come from, and I am concerned too on how money is spent. Would it bother you as much if the wealthy got taxed more but it was spent in a way you agree with?

Wow, have I missed a great thread.

First no one "deserves" a tax rate. Making people pay isn't should not be the function of taxes. The function of taxes is to fund the necessary expenses of government. We don't deserve it. It's our duty to fund the necessary--only necessary--expenses.

The truly "fair", that is, equal tax is if everyone pays the same amount. Not percentage. Amount. But what's "fair" isn't practical, so we all agree that some percentage is in order.

If I make $10,000 / year and you make $1,000,000 per year, and we have a flat tax rate of 10%, my tax burden is $1000. But yours is 100 times that. I think that gives you a pretty good case that you're paying **more** than your fair share. But no, you're saying it's unfair to me because you can afford it better than I can. As if affordability should be what determines what people pay, rather than what the government actually needs to function.

Tax rates shouldn't be determined by how much you can afford. It's a mindset that thinks in terms that the resources of the people belong to government. It's not their money. It's ours. They're taking it from us and spending it on whatever they want. They feel entitled to what you have.

A government of the government spends what it wants and feels entitled to the people's resources as it sees fit. A government truly of the people should have to beg for every penny it gets so that it recognizes that they are stewards of what they've been given, and that they should spend it wisely, because it's not theirs.

Unless you're rich, advocating that rich people pay more is the same as you voting to raise everyone's taxes but your own.

I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to put things in perspective.

 

[jamil]

Unless you're some kind of expert on knowing what people are by the few given view points, I don't agree with that at all. I believe in capitalism, but like every other system of economy it has it's flaws. No such thing as a perfect economic system. And you missed my point entirely on percentages. It's not a liberal or conservative issue, it's a middle class issue. I never believed in trickle-down economics, it's a sham. I think middle-out economics works best.

"trickle-down" economics isn't just a theory of economics. It's just the way things work in the practical world. Whether capitalist or communist or all points in between, it's just the way it is. In the former, some people are just more advantaged than others. For communists it's "trickle-down", because some animals are more equal than others. At least the capitalists are honest about it.

You seem to think income inequality is a good thing. That it gives someone goals to strive for, rewarding those that apply themselves and pull themselves up by their boot straps.

I see inequality as a horrible thing. But we don't define "equality" the same.

Both sides of this issue come from two completely different viewpoints, yet both advocate for equality. One side is value oriented. The other side is outcome oriented. The outcome oriented side accuses the value oriented side of being greedy. The value oriented side accuses the outcome oriented side of being lazy and jealous.

The outcome oriented side says that an individual's value is equal to everyone else's, regardless of what the person produces. Therefore, everyone should be paid more equally. To this mindset, "equality" means equal outcome. Of course there are exceptions as pure equality of outcome is impossible. Some people will always have better outcomes than others. Some people are just better than others and just manage a better outcome. And this is where the jealousy part comes in. It seems reasonable that the kind of people who are naturally envious would tend to demand equal outcomes. Certainly the people who earn more don't envy people who earn less. And the people who earn more don't generally complain as much about equal outcomes. I'm not saying this side isn't without greedy people either. Some people abuse outcome equality advocacy for their own gain. Some people make a living advocating for outcome equality having gained their own outcome inequality at the expense of those they advocate for.

The value oriented side says an individual's value is worth what he or she is able to produce. To this mindset, equality means equal opportunity. Purely equal opportunity is also impossible. Not everyone can have the same opportunities. Not everyone comes from the best environments for becoming achievers. Sometimes advantages are just lucky breaks. Some people will always have advantages. And that's where greed comes in. You can't say that all advantaged people are greedy. But it seems reasonable that the kind of people who are naturally greedy tend to make and exploit their own advantages, usually at the expense of other people. And this side isn't without its jealous types either.

So you can't honestly say we favor inequality. Instead of fashioning a straw monster from the parts of the opposing perspective you don't understand, just try to understand it. No one's saying inequality is good. Just that it's a natural occurrence. Liberty is a more likely outcome with a value based approach.

I don't think you realize just how many hard working middle class Americans lose their purchasing power because their wages and benefits have stagnated.

You may look at the government as being just some big nanny state out to give all these benefits to the poor, but don't seem to take into account the huge deals the government gives to the rich.

Take capital gains. A middle class family can't even afford to invest in the stock market other than maybe their 401k. There's nothing left at the end to try and benefit from the 15% tax on capital gains that the 1% like Warren Buffet and Romney get to enjoy.

Hold on there. GIVING people other people's money can't be equated with allowing people to keep their OWN money. I advocate all Americans should be able to keep their own money. The government should have to beg us for every penny it receives.

Or oil subsidies. For every dollar we spend on a green subsidy, we spend another dollar, or more, on an oil subsidy. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Ok. Now we're talking. Corporate welfare is no better than personal welfare. Our government should give no more money to oil companies than it should "green" companies. If there's not a market for your product, that's too bad. Find another product. There is a market for oil. There's not one for "green" other than what the government has subsidized. I don't advocate for ANY corporate welfare.

40% of people on food stamps actually have a job already, and as you would expect they work for minimum wage or close to it. Those jobs are places like Wal-Mart, who pays as little as they can to maximize the profits of a family that inherited an international empire from their dad. So because Wal-Mart won't do the moral and responsible thing by paying their workers a living wage, the government has to come in and make up the difference. See you have all this hatred for the government for wanting to help, even if it means trimming off some of the Walton families' profits to help pay for it.. while seemingly not putting any of the blame on the cause.

Businesses aren't in business to employ people. They're in business to earn profit. We've developed this crazy notion that it is immoral to earn profit, and especially immoral if that means paying employees what the market will bear. That's not immoral. That's not greedy. That's just value oriented thinking. But you outcome oriented thinkers have made people believe that profit is evil. Profit does not equal greed.

No one HAS to work for Walmart. They tell you up front what you're expected to do, and what you'll be paid for doing it. You can take it or you leave it. It may not be practical for you to leave it, and so you might have take it because it's all you have. Or, in some markets, taking you at a higher wage may not be all that practical for them, but they take you anyway because that's the nature of the market.

If you want a living wage, do something that is valuable enough for your employer to pay you a living wage. You are not entitled to someone else's resources just because you breathe. Neither you nor I "deserve" a living wage. The product of my work is valuable enough to my employer for it to pay me a living wage. I'm not naturally entitled to that. I had to learn the necessary skills to produce that kind of value.

Every entitlement we have today, we have as a result of Republican policies run rampant and ruining peoples lives. The people then respond in kind, and you get things like The New Deal and Social Security.

As for Romney, in 2011 he paid 2 mill on 13.6 mill income. His tax return was 379 pages long compared to 203 pages in 2010. If we are talking about UN-American, I think a good place to start would be the guy that needs 379 pages and off shore tax shelters to prevent him from having to give back to his country after he so callously pillaged it by buying companies and firing American workers to ship their jobs to China and make the company more profitable.. for him. It is disgusting a person like him ever got the nomination at all, but if your party is all about respecting greed at all costs, then he's the perfect candidate.

I favor ALL Americans paying as little in taxes as possible. It's our money. "American" doesn't mean naturally ceding our resources to the government. The American Dream doesn't involve the government at all. The American Dream is having the liberty to rise to the extent of our individual abilities. Unfortunately, regardless of what system we use, some people will be poor. And I'm not against helping the poor. I am against the government imprisoning the poor in a cycle of entitlement poverty, trying to equalize their outcome while stifling their opportunity to pull themselves out. So stop making a straw man of that by saying that value oriented people want to unfairly gain at the expense of others.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Military, reduce the budget
Civil Rights, stay out of people's bedrooms
Environmental issues, let's not end up like China
Religion, why should govt care
Women's rights, their bodies their rules

Don't forget

Guns. You don't like them don't buy them.

I could get behind this. A bit of a libertarian philosophy.

 

[MisterChester]

Wow, have I missed a great thread.

First no one "deserves" a tax rate. Making people pay isn't should not be the function of taxes. The function of taxes is to fund the necessary expenses of government. We don't deserve it. It's our duty to fund the necessary--only necessary--expenses.

The truly "fair", that is, equal tax is if everyone pays the same amount. Not percentage. Amount. But what's "fair" isn't practical, so we all agree that some percentage is in order.

If I make $10,000 / year and you make $1,000,000 per year, and we have a flat tax rate of 10%, my tax burden is $1000. But yours is 100 times that. I think that gives you a pretty good case that you're paying **more** than your fair share. But no, you're saying it's unfair to me because you can afford it better than I can. As if affordability should be what determines what people pay, rather than what the government actually needs to function.

Tax rates shouldn't be determined by how much you can afford. It's a mindset that thinks in terms that the resources of the people belong to government. It's not their money. It's ours. They're taking it from us and spending it on whatever they want. They feel entitled to what you have.

A government of the government spends what it wants and feels entitled to the people's resources as it sees fit. A government truly of the people should have to beg for every penny it gets so that it recognizes that they are stewards of what they've been given, and that they should spend it wisely, because it's not theirs.

Unless you're rich, advocating that rich people pay more is the same as you voting to raise everyone's taxes but your own.

I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to put things in perspective.

the amount the government needs to function as far as I am concerned is very close to incalculable, because it is always changing to outside circumstances. To me it's not as relevant as the amount people are taxed. The "fairest" way to tax as you put it is actually as unfair as it gets. This is why it should be based on percentages. If we based taxes solely on what we need to function, to me it doesn't make much sense. How do we get that number? How do we know if it'll be enough? How do we know if it's too much? If I ran a business, I wouldn't be doing very well if I charged for my goods and services just to break even every year. You would have to develop a system that would make sure there would always be enough to run it. It would not be practical, and probably cost money to implement which defeats the purpose.

 

[jamil]

the amount the government needs to function as far as I am concerned is very close to incalculable, because it is always changing to outside circumstances. To me it's not as relevant as the amount people are taxed. The "fairest" way to tax as you put it is actually as unfair as it gets. This is why it should be based on percentages. If we based taxes solely on what we need to function, to me it doesn't make much sense. How do we get that number? How do we know if it'll be enough? How do we know if it's too much? If I ran a business, I wouldn't be doing very well if I charged for my goods and services just to break even every year. You would have to develop a system that would make sure there would always be enough to run it. It would not be practical, and probably cost money to implement which defeats the purpose.

About fairness. I'm not opposed to a percentage, unfair as it is. The fairest way is where everyone pays the same amount, or, actually even fairer, everyone pays in proportion to the government services they consume. But as I said that's not practical, because not everyone can afford the same amount. So percentages seem appropriate.

How do we get that number? How the hell do we get it now? Well, not "now" now, but once upon a not so long time ago, now. Yes, we've done federal budgets before. We can do them again. As complicated as our tax system is now, it seems less complicated to do a budget and project the needed income to cover the needed expenses. Tax rates could be determined from that.

What I propose is called the PYMWYMI pronounced pim-WIM-ey. Put-Your-Money-Where-Your-Mouth-Is plan.

It's a flat tax rate based on non-discretionary spending. It would require a periodic budget passed by congress and signed by the president. If they don't pass a budget, they don't get money. The rate would be called the non-discretionary rate for obvious reasons and would be the same for everyone. Each budget period, you'd be mailed a tax election form, which includes the current period's tax rate.

I realize some people really, really want bigger government. So with my plan, you can opt to pay for as much government as you care to afford. All discretionary spending would be covered by an additional voluntary tax. If you want wealth redistribution, you get to determine how much of yours you want redistributed. Of course, you get zero choice on how much anyone else will redistribute. Cow fart studies, Head Start, Public Education, you want it, put your money where your mouth is and pay for it yourself.

 

[Smokepole]

So true. There is little to nothing liberal (in a positive sense) coming from leftists. The latin roots of the word have hijacked like other things.
Liberalism today, has nothing of the sort of freedom you would associate liberty with. They are about control, as you said.

A true pro gun liberal is really a conservative that wants to be cool and vote democrat so they arent made fun of by their buddies. The left today are not the democrats of even 20 years ago. The party is nothing more than communism and hate, that do nothing other than trash everyone else and use the media to bash their opponents. They run everything, education, the media, hollywood, "science" and its all by design. to fool you into voting your rights and paycheck away.

The people that most are calling Liberals anymore are anything but liberal. They are actually Progressives. And there are Progressives in BOTH parties. For those in the Republican Party look at those that are running the National party and others the likes of John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, etc. And they all need to replaces and marginalized ASAP.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

There's nothing wrong with having strong political beliefs, but everyone could do themselves a favor and take a step back from the tribal "left" and"right." The next time someone asks if you're an R or a D, tell them your favorite movie.

That being said both parties have committed themselves to not getting my vote, when I finally begin to SLIGHTLY like ONE politician, they say something that is either completely asinine, or is completely opposite of a previous statement. I don't feel that our representatives are genuine anymore. I think they know this too. Sad part is no one cares.

 

[MisterChester]

About fairness. I'm not opposed to a percentage, unfair as it is. The fairest way is where everyone pays the same amount, or, actually even fairer, everyone pays in proportion to the government services they consume. But as I said that's not practical, because not everyone can afford the same amount. So percentages seem appropriate.

How do we get that number? How the hell do we get it now? Well, not "now" now, but once upon a not so long time ago, now. Yes, we've done federal budgets before. We can do them again. As complicated as our tax system is now, it seems less complicated to do a budget and project the needed income to cover the needed expenses. Tax rates could be determined from that.

What I propose is called the PYMWYMI pronounced pim-WIM-ey. Put-Your-Money-Where-Your-Mouth-Is plan.

It's a flat tax rate based on non-discretionary spending. It would require a periodic budget passed by congress and signed by the president. If they don't pass a budget, they don't get money. The rate would be called the non-discretionary rate for obvious reasons and would be the same for everyone. Each budget period, you'd be mailed a tax election form, which includes the current period's tax rate.

I realize some people really, really want bigger government. So with my plan, you can opt to pay for as much government as you care to afford. All discretionary spending would be covered by an additional voluntary tax. If you want wealth redistribution, you get to determine how much of yours you want redistributed. Of course, you get zero choice on how much anyone else will redistribute. Cow fart studies, Head Start, Public Education, you want it, put your money where your mouth is and pay for it yourself.

I think your idea could work very well, however my only concern would be who decides on what is discretionary and what isn't?

 

[jamil]

I think your idea could work very well, however my only concern would be who decides on what is discretionary and what isn't?

Heh, some definitions would have to change. The president's proposed "non-discretionary" spending items are Medicare/AFA, Social Security, Unemployment, Labor, Food Stamps/Agg, some Veterans benefits, some Transportation expenses. All military spending is considered "discretionary".

All that stuff is currently ~65% of our overall expenses! As much as we like having "national conversations" I think we need an honest debate about the role of government and the constitution.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Heh, some definitions would have to change. The president's proposed "non-discretionary" spending items are Medicare/AFA, Social Security, Unemployment, Labor, Food Stamps/Agg, some Veterans benefits, some Transportation expenses. All military spending is considered "discretionary".

All that stuff is currently ~65% of our overall expenses! As much as we like having "national conversations" I think we need an honest debate about the role of government and the constitution.

Something I always wonder is liberals say "Social security is going broke. Medicare is going broke". How is it they never say that about food stamps or welfare? I would say we should pay the former before the later because people actually have to have worked at some point for them. There are lots of good people down on their luck, but sadly there are lots of people abusing the social safety net and I would bet dollars to dimes that 99% voted for Obama.

 

[Trooper]

There's nothing wrong with having strong political beliefs, but everyone could do themselves a favor and take a step back from the tribal "left" and"right." The next time someone asks if you're an R or a D, tell them your favorite movie.

That being said both parties have committed themselves to not getting my vote, when I finally begin to SLIGHTLY like ONE politician, they say something that is either completely asinine, or is completely opposite of a previous statement. I don't feel that our representatives are genuine anymore. I think they know this too. Sad part is no one cares.

The problem with moderates is that they fear strong beliefs. They lack principles which is why they are moderates.

Now even with strong beliefs there is a need for being pragmatic. I may believe in something, say gun rights, yet realize that all I may get at any point is less than I desire. Thus I work over time to achieve my goals. Being pragmatic is not letting go of principles rather realizing that sometimes one can't get it all, now.