Why must a majority of the country be penalized for the success of a few?..

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by freeny, Oct 21, 2008.

  1. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #1
    The republican talking point of "Why must I be penalized for being successful" pertaining to Obamas tax strategy, is a valid point for the fortunate handful of those who earn more then $250,000.

    So I present the converse question to those fortunate people...

    Why must a majority of the country be penalized for the success of the few?...

    For what its worth, I personally don't see taxes as a penalty, but a payment for the services this country provides both nationally and locally...
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Heh. I love the way you turned that question around.

    The "official" answer, of course, will be because it's the "few" who provide jobs, and we'll lose jobs if they have to pay more yada yada yada.

    Of course, no one's convinced we're seeing more good jobs. And a lot of that money is going to shareholders, which of course doesn't create any jobs.
     
  3. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #3
    Great point, especially when you hear the wealthy condemning the use of taxes on social programs, but then they don't stop to achknowledge that we have social programs specifically geared towards protecting and augmenting their wealth: defense, law enforcement, the state department, trade negotiators, our ports and interstate highways that allow businesses to transport their goods are all examples of government spending that inordinately favor the wealthy.
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    If it is really a payment like you say, why should some have to pay more?
     
  5. freeny thread starter macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #5
    Because they can?

    It is in the entire countries interest to have as few people in the "poor" category as possible, especially for the wealthy. If you drive more people to the poor house, things will get kinda crappy for everyone, especially the wealthy...
    You have the wrong perspective, you need to look at it as more of an "investment" ;)
     
  6. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #6
    I understand wanting to cut taxes on the affluent to spur investment, but we've been doing so at the cost of eliminating consumers at the low and middle end.

    Investment is good, but without consumers who can afford to buy products, all the investment in the world won't keep a business alive when they can't sell their products. With the credit crunch and bank crises it makes more sense to make money available for consumers.

    Sure it may be at the expense of higher taxes on the affluent but if the lower and middle classes have more disposable income which they can use to consume goods the increased consumption could benefit the affluent more than the tax breaks. Such a horrible punishment we exact by making sure that those who spend (rather than invest) their money because there's no room to save, have more with which to buy products that generate profits for the affluent.

    Our economy is driven by consumers and giving more money to the well off doesn't do much to increase consumption since those who have money to invest will not necessarily consume more when they have more money.
     
  7. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #7
    Because the more land and wealth you amass, the more you have to lose from military invasion, crime, fire and other natural disasters. Therefore, it's only fair that you pay a larger percentage of the costs of law enforcement and military expenditures. Additionally, since you have more to lose, you should be paying more for prophylactic anti-crime measures such as social programs that aim to keep people from resorting to crime.

    If you own a business that ships goods, your burden on the ports and transportation infrastructure is greater than the average citizen. You benefit more from our governments negotiations with other countries that set the conditions for the selling of your goods abroad.

    Furthermore, your company relies on the education system to provide it with a skilled workforce. While the individual benefits from his/her education, you receive a greater benefit from the educational system as a whole because it commodifies a certain level of knowledge and that drives down the cost of labor for your business.
     
  8. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #8
    I don't think it is a penalty for a specific person, cause that person who makes over $250k can use all the existing tax deductions to bring their taxes down, and if God forbid something happens and their income plummets, their taxes go down with them.

    It is a scale, but where you fall on that scale will change throughout your life. I don't see anything wrong with it.

    What I have issue is how much of the tax dollars get wasted through pork projects and corruption. Any big government program will have waste in it unfortunately, and I have less issue with waste than giving away $$ for political gain.
     
  9. bigjnyc macrumors 601

    bigjnyc

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    #9

    well said. thats a good point, I was kind of indifferent until you made those points.
     
  10. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #10
    If we need these tax dollars so bad then shouldn't we all be paying a little more in taxes. I'm sure I could find a lot of people on this board who make under $250,000 that could afford to throw a little extra cash towards the government every year.
     
  11. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #11
    +a million
     
  12. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #12
    I sort of agree with you. If the median income is $52,000/yr for a family of four, then $250,000 for a couple is definitely at the high end of "middle class."

    On the other hand, in the past 20+ years, the real income of the "bottom" 80% of the population has gone down ($600 billion per year total), the income of the top 1% has gone up by that same figure total, and the 81st-99th percentile all together has stayed the same. Obama is basically giving a (modest) cut to the "bottom" 80%, no change for 81-95, and an increase to the top 5%. It makes a lot of sense in terms of who has benefitted and been hurt and not affected by our tax and economic policies over the previous two+ decades.

    Really, the top 1% should get an additional increase, but that's not going to happen in the near future.
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #13
    Lemme put it to you this way.

    If we lived in a utopian world where everybody made a livable wage, where all the infrastructure was in great condition, where everyone had good health care, and essentially where there was no poverty and no big problems to solve, and the whole thing was a self-sustaining process, then I would be in favor of a flat tax.

    Until then, the better-off are just gonna have to contribute more.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    When all taxes are taken into consideration, the aggregate tax is system is currently flat at best and actually regressive for many taxpayers. This taxation debate is a strange one in many respects, but probably where it becomes the most abstruse is in discussions of Obama's proposal, which is simply to return the federal income tax rates to where they were before the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. It's as if failing to comfort the already comfortable will bring about some sort of calamity. Maybe somebody can explain why this would be the case.
     
  15. freeny thread starter macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #15
    Well, there is an election to be won and both candidates are trying to appeal to their base.
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #16
    Well, if the caviar and the $1000 shower curtain industries go under, we all go under.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    A lot of rich people would go hungry and have wet bathroom floors besides. Now that would be a calamity.
     
  18. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #18
    I think you'll find that at least the Russian caviar industry has already gone under so consumers are stuck with either Iranian or illegal caviar.
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    How can fish eggs do something illegal? :confused: ;)
     
  20. Badandy macrumors 68040

    Badandy

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #20
    This thread is not worthy of a substantive response.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #21
    'Twere it only I and Peterkro and IJ being silly, as we were in the last few posts, I might agree. But taking the conventional "wisdom" and turning it on its head, as freeny has proposed, is, on the contrary, quite a worthy topic. In point of fact, questioning the conventional wisdom is often a worthy task. Sorry you feel otherwise.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    so are you cut and running?

    wheres the HONOR in that, leaving without VICTORY?




    ;)
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    Because the primary function of government is to protect private property, the primary beneficiaries of which are the rich.
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    Actually, the question is a very good one. There have been a lot of good points made as well.
     
  25. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #25
    Because that's how you make a leader driven society.

    If you take away money from the leaders and more "productive" people, they will not be able to spend on things that are more productive, like creating jobs, investing in technological advancement, etc.

    As to the "poorer" not being able to "consume as much"? That's a flawed argument, because you are distributing the wealth...not eliminating it. So as long as the "less productive" people have means for survival, they need not have extra money to spend on things that are less productive to the advancement of society.

    If this money is distributed to the highly productive people, then the money is better spent by them for something that usually "adds value". This way, the "leaders" decide the direction of the world (versus the masses).

    Now I know there are low-wage people who work their butts off and do things with a great impact and that not all working class folks spend on guzzling beer every chance they get. And I know there are rich people are just lucky and who spend all their savings on the a golf course residence. But I'm talking about the average mentality of the social classes. It's more likely that a low productivity person will spend their extra money on things that are "frivolous" versus someone who's live goal is driven by ambition (which may have gotten them rich to begin with).
     

Share This Page