Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 06, 2020, 06:19:54 am
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  The theory that Romney wasn't conservative enough to win: (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The theory that Romney wasn't conservative enough to win:  (Read 2886 times)
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
Posts: 2,220
United States

« on: July 25, 2013, 05:44:30 pm »

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.

OK, before we go on explain to me how billionaires exploit the middle class? and how would a flat tax reduce government benefits? I am by no means for selfish billionaires but how do they exploit the middle class?

You're suggesting that every worker should only pay 5% of their income right? I guess the average wage of a worker today is somewhere between 15% and 25%, isn't it? In that case only a very tiny fraction of taxes would remain on the federal level, and once the military budget would get its share, I guess there wouldn't be many dollars left over, if any at all. Unless one would be willing to expand the federal debt further into astronomical levels.

By the way, you're aware that the richest 400 Americans have assets equal to the 150 million poorest Americans? In other words equal to half of the US population. That should be proof enough that this share of the society should contribute much more to government operations, weather it be infrastruction, energy, research, health care or what not. What you'd like to see is an internal war between those 150 million poorest of Americans. I simply don't get it. When all the wealth is with the 1% or even the 0.1% or 0.01% of Americans, why do you further want to exploit the unemployed and the hard-struggling middle class and blue collar workers?

The tax 5% thing was an example just to make a point, I'm not suggesting any actual numbers here.

Many 1%ers do wonderful stuff for charity and help out the government, many however don't help out the government specifically because they know it will waste its money one some useless programs (in their mind). Of course with a flat tax their donating a much bigger chuck of money to the government while at the same time donating the same chuck of his money as a working class man. Unfortunately selfishness is something people have to deal with, just because it's their (1%) money doesn't mean we should take a bigger chunk of it away, and it's their business to keep or spend it how they want.

I completely understand the point your trying to make here: Since a rich man has more money, they should contribute much more of their money to society.

But part of individual freedom is spending and keeping money how you want. You may not be happy with it, but its not your choice. That's something that for the most part I agree with even if it is selfish, its individualism. That's where we'll never agree, so If you have one more point to make, make it.
I don't think you understand the argument behind progressive taxation. The reason the poor should pay lower rates is because their pretax income isn't even enough to live on. The rich, on the other hand, while they do spend more money on consumer goods because they have more of it, the percentage of their income they spend on consumer goods, and therefore also sales taxes, is actually lower. Also, social security taxes are flat, up to $108,000. Beyond that point, people pay the same amount as someone making $108,000 a year, but the poor pay the same payroll tax rate as people up to $108,000 a year. The rich also pay a smaller percentage of their income in that tax as well. So, if we had a flat income tax, the poor would be paying a higher percentage of their incomes to total taxes than the rich or the middle class, which they can afford under no circumstances. However, the rich have more money and would not be harmed by paying a slightly higher rate. That was the mainstream liberal position on taxation. Notice, there is no mention of the rich being greedy or anything of the like. Also, people who refuse to work are ineligible for government assistance, as far as I know. If you have information from a credible source (i.e. not a right-wing website) indicating that I am wrong, feel free to post a link to correct my misconception.
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  

Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines