Tax Cuts for the PeopleFollow

It's simple, Varus.

Those quotes are (in order) a generalization and a lie.

The traditional Liberal argument. The rich have more, so we should take more of their money. Damn the successful! It's the lazy bastards who deserve the freebies!

The traditional Liberal argument. The rich have more, so we should take more of their money. Damn the successful! It's the lazy bastards who deserve the freebies!


The people who benefit from a competetive society where the vast majorty of the advantages that lead to sucess are based simple no which familty you're born into have an obligation to support those who suffer under the same system.

Simple basic fairness.

I have an obligation to support people like you, even when you cote against your best finicial intrest to give me a massive tax cut I don't need, aren't going to spend, and particularly when the government spends more than any time in history.

And you buy it?!?! I thought you were smarter than that.


You have to understnad the character of someone making $50k a year who votes for tax cuts for the wealthy. It increases their self esteem by making them feel part of a world they've failed to find a way into.

By advocating for the rich, they assosiate themselves with them and further cement the fantasy that some day they will be them.

Then they die penniless and insane in a run down medicare funded nursing home.

Aren't the self-made, exceptions to the rule what the American Dream is? Just sayin'


Sure there are.

People win the lottery, too. Maybe we should cut the prices on lottery tickets to give the poor a better chance.

Smashed wrote:




Why is this a problem? I don't begrudge people that are making, or have inherited, money I don't have. I'm not wealthy but I know that if I work hard, don't break the law, and stay consistent I will become wealthy. When I attain that goal I wouldn't want the government in essence telling me I made too much so they're going to take a big chunk of it from me to give to other more deserving citizens.

Yes my house is only valued at 90k...of course I am self-employeed and have yet to hit 30. While this is my first house it won't be my last and with the accumulation of wealth I dread running into the serious tax problems that my father encountered after creating a business that had 15offices and over 50 employees. Which due to lawsuit abuse, like employess suing him for firing them for not showing up for work, and numerous other types of lawsuits forced him to sell his business and retire at 40.

My point is why would I want to work so hard to create a huge amount of wealth only to have the government take close to 50% of it?

Varus

Varus

Erm, so you could be proud of the way your country treats the old, the sick and the disadvantaged and the way it protects its citizens from crime and terrorism?

Naw. Strike that. Stoopid idea.

Smashed wrote:



So because you feel guilty for achieving a high lvl of wealth you believe it to be the "obligation" of anyone that has achieved a similar lvl to pay 50% of their earnings to taxes. Do you realize that this effectively amounts to you working for the federal government for 6months w/o compensation? Is this the kind of logic current and prior federal employess have?

If you really feel guilty about having earned so much why not just take another 25% of your yearly earnings and head on down to the local soup kitchen or Ymca and drop off 25% of your earnings to the people running those places.

Varus

He didn't say he felt guilty, he said he was obligated.

So because you feel guilty for achieving a high lvl of wealth you believe it to be the "obligation" of anyone that has achieved a similar lvl to pay 50% of their earnings to taxes. Do you realize that this effectively amounts to you working for the federal government for 6months w/o compensation? Is this the kind of logic current and prior federal employess have?


I don't feel "guilty" about anything. If I play in a Poker tounrnament and win, I'll but the loosers drinks.

Also what you apparently fail to understand about the graduated income tax system is that you only pay a higher rate on income above a certain threshold.

So the first $200k or whatever is taxed at a lower rate.

The logic is very simple. People who earn more should pay for more government services.

In point of fact, people who have more should pay more, but that's not how it's structured at the moemnt. I could have no income for a year and thus pay no taxes, and still have 100 times the net worth of someone who pays taxes.

Does that strike you as fair?



If you really feel guilty about having earned so much why not just take another 25% of your yearly earnings and head on down to the local soup kitchen or Ymca and drop off 25% of your earnings to the people running those places.


It's not about giult, it's about basic fairness.

When will you people learn that life isn't fair? Taking more from someone just because they have it is not right. It is not morally justifiable. It is the reprehensible action of a caste jealous of the success of others


I agree.

Pay for a bigger tax cut for me, will you boy? When you're done mowing my lawn, there's a good chap.

Aside from being typically condescending you're also dead wrong. I am not paying for a bigger tax cut for you. My taxes didn't increase.

There's an old term that isn't heard much anymore.

Noblesse oblige.