and that:Teaos wrote:I'm middle class and I support flat tax as well. It has nothing to do with wanting more money for myself but wanting a fairer tax system.
Fair is treating everyone equally. Funny how everyone is all for equality until you start talking money.Deepcrush wrote:Fair is treating people with the respect they deserve and honoring their rights along with your own.What is fair though?
Tyyr wrote:This:and that:Teaos wrote:I'm middle class and I support flat tax as well. It has nothing to do with wanting more money for myself but wanting a fairer tax system.Fair is treating everyone equally. Funny how everyone is all for equality until you start talking money.Deepcrush wrote:Fair is treating people with the respect they deserve and honoring their rights along with your own.What is fair though?
Merriam-Webster dictionary wrote:6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with> b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
But why should it be equal? CEO's do shit for work, and get the big bucks... The should pay more taxes, as they don't 'earn' the money...Deepcrush wrote:Most people who talk about equality are only looking for something to bitch about. They think equality means that everyone has to give to them.
Besides, equality has nothing to do with taxes. Its just not possible. No matter what, people will be paying different amounts to taxes. You buy more, or buy in a different state or have a different pay grade... whatever... Equality isn't real with taxes. You can however make things fair or balanced.
First off, I said there is no such thing as equal. Second, if thats your thought. Then we should be taxing everyone on welfare, on food stamps, on unempolyment, on finacial aid... Since they aren't earning that money. Next, how do you know if those CEO's aren't earning their money? Are you really saying that every single CEO is just sitting on his ass doing nothing? If you are then you're pretty stupid. They did something to get there. At some point in their lives, 99% of them had to work their asses off to get there.Nickswitz wrote:But why should it be equal? CEO's do s**t for work, and get the big bucks... The should pay more taxes, as they don't 'earn' the money...
How is that "fair" in any way, shape or form?I wrote:Taking 50% from someone who makes $10,000 a year would put them on the street. Take 50% from someone who makes $10 million a year, and they'd have to wait a little while before they buy a new island.
It's off topic from fairness. But I believe in every instance that's been implemented it's turned into, as the Soviet proverb went, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".Tsukiyumi wrote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
If that were the case, mechanics and janitors would make more than CEOs.sunnyside wrote:Personally I'd consider "fair" to be closer to "each according to their effort"
If you mean the 50% exaggeration I think it's more people not wasting time refuting the ridiculous.Tsukiyumi wrote:I notice people continue to ignore the obvious example I posited above that.
Just a hint, quoting Marx is probably not going to bring a lot of people around to your cause. That said, how is it fair for one person to make use of the same public services as another yet the pays next to nothing in income tax and the other is paying 35% or more of his income in taxes? How is it fair for one person to get a free ride and another to have to pick up the tab for them?Tsukiyumi wrote:How is that "fair" in any way, shape or form?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Oh come on. Are you really that naive? Do you really think that CEO's sit around all day sipping champagne, eating cheese, and getting blown by their secretaries? Does it occur to you that CEO's are responsible for their entire company's success or failure? That their decisions, their work, determines whether or not the company that employs those mechanics or janitors prospers or fails. Whether or not those people will even have jobs the next week is dependant upon those CEO's making good choices for their companies. Is phsyical labor the sole benchmark of whether or not anyone is contributing to society? If a mechanic screws the pooch the company is on the hook for a free car repair and he gets his ass chewed. If a CEO screws the pooch hundreds to tens of thousands of people are out of a job and there's a good chance his face is going to be splashed all over the news. The level of responsibility is just slightly different. Yeah, some CEOs are jackasses, some screw up and don't ever get in trouble or even get a raise, but a couple of highly publicised bad actors does not mean that every bit is the same. Hell, I know more than a few mechanics and janitors who do nothing, even totally screw up, and still have their jobs and still get paid.Tsukiyumi wrote:If that were the case, mechanics and janitors would make more than CEOs.
"Ridiculous"? Right. It's simple math. Person A loses half of their income and becomes homeless. Person B loses half of their income, and they still have 5 MILLION DOLLARS. How can this be any more obvious? Flat tax is bullsh*t.Tyyr wrote:If you mean the 50% exaggeration I think it's more people not wasting time refuting the ridiculous.Tsukiyumi wrote:I notice people continue to ignore the obvious example I posited above that.
Or perhaps with a less-outrageous tax rate, let's call it 10: Person A loses 10% of their income and is now living paycheck to paycheck, not homeless but not completely secure either. Person B loses 10% and likely doesn't notice.Tsukiyumi wrote:"Ridiculous"? Right. It's simple math. Person A loses half of their income and becomes homeless. Person B loses half of their income, and they still have 5 MILLION DOLLARS. How can this be any more obvious? Flat tax is bullsh*t.Tyyr wrote:If you mean the 50% exaggeration I think it's more people not wasting time refuting the ridiculous.Tsukiyumi wrote:I notice people continue to ignore the obvious example I posited above that.
No, the ridiculous part is suggesting that the tax rate would go to 50%.Tsukiyumi wrote:"Ridiculous"? Right. It's simple math. Person A loses half of their income and becomes homeless. Person B loses half of their income, and they still have 5 MILLION DOLLARS. How can this be any more obvious? Flat tax is bullsh*t.
Riiiight. You really think most rich people feel that way about their money do you?Nickswitz wrote:Yes, but nonetheless, the point is that one group, the majority, can't really afford it, and the minority, the rich guys, won't care if they lose some of their income, because they have enough to go around...
