Dirt poor liberals. No respect for the rich.

from JoeUser Forums
On the contrary to popular belief, all "liberals" are not against rich people. I don't know about the situations of the other liberals on JU, but I can tell you right now that I am in the top tax paying bracket, and earn a considerable ammount of money from both the stock market and dividends. Despite this, I (and all liberals) continue to be hit from the right with propaganda about being rich people haters. Earlier today I read a post which generalized our feelings that the rich people were stupid. This post seemed to indicate that we don't understand that the wealthy drive the economy. I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you that I understand this. The thing is, people that are wealthy understand that they can live without 1% of their income. I, like the next person, will try to keep my taxes as low as possible by deducting expenses wherever applicable, however I understand that the wealthy not only have a disposable income, we also have a larger dpenedence on the government. Without the protection of the government, our monies would not be safe from looters and criminals. Further, we understand that if our 35% tax rate was applied to everyone else, we would not be able to earn the kind of money we are acustomed to earning. Among other things I also understand that economically speaking it would be a good investment to pay of the debt if we can afford to, which by raising taxes temp. we would be able to, and the reason for this is becase the value of the dollar would skyrocket, meaning products would be come less expensive, we would experience deflation and our export-import ratio would even out. This would greatly benifit our economy. Paying off the debt would also save 350 billion dollars a year, which could be used to lower taxes eventually. Lastly, I understand that there are things that the government needs to do, such as provide a college education to everyone. I don't believe that high taxes for the rich are fair, but I believe they are justified and acceptable, and it is the price you pay for being the wealthiest people in America, and I at least am willing to accept that small price to pay.
politics
6,526 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
My problem with your logic is this.

I don't believe that high taxes for the rich are fair, but I believe they are justified and acceptable, and it is the price you pay for being the wealthiest people in America, and I at least am willing to accept that small price to pay.


Now, if I get this right, you don't like high taxes for rich people, but think they are justified. Here are my questions for you.

1) What justifies higher taxes on the rich, or high taxes on the rich?

2) While some people are born rich, most rich men and women have to work, or their families have had to work hard to make the money they have. Why would you punish these people for working hard and using their money in a fiscally responsible manner?

3) Why do you believe that the rich should support the poor? Please do not take this out of context. What I mean is, why should the rich have to use their accumulated wealth to have people feed off of them?

Your statement that wealthier depend more on the government is, in my view, inadequite. Wealthier people depend on protection from the government, but so do the middle and lower class citizens as well. The Fed does insure their money, but the Fed insures all banked money. People dependent on welfare who refuse to try and get a job are dependent on the government, and to some extent, dependent on middle class citizens who pay their taxes. Lower income families receive more aid in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc. Please explain to a fuller extent why wealthy people are more dependent on the government.

As for the government paying for university for all students, I feel that this topic should be discussed in a different blog.

Peace,

Beebes
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ooops. Please delete this.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Sandy a counterpoint to your argument to have the rich help the poor was done by a Philosopher Garret Hardin.

His article 'Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor' is a pretty good philosophical piece and a interesting read.

Link to Article

That is it for me, I am off to skulk around some more before I go off and read some Ayn Rand coupled with Robert Anton Wilson.

- Grimsaac Xsimov
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't believe that high taxes for the rich are fair, but I believe they are justified and acceptable, and it is the price you pay for being the wealthiest people in America, and I at least am willing to accept that small price to pay.
Bravo!!! Now if only wealthy conservatives could accept your mulifaceted argument.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your statement that wealthier depend more on the government is, in my view, inadequite. Wealthier people depend on protection from the government, but so do the middle and lower class citizens as well. The Fed does insure their money, but the Fed insures all banked money. People dependent on welfare who refuse to try and get a job are dependent on the government, and to some extent, dependent on middle class citizens who pay their taxes. Lower income families receive more aid in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc. Please explain to a fuller extent why wealthy people are more dependent on the government.


That's a good point. We also have to remember that it's the wealthy that feed the government, not the poor who pay no taxes. Even if they did require more government dependance, they're already paying for it.

Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
I don't believe that high taxes for the rich are fair, but I believe they are justified and acceptable, and it is the price you pay for being the wealthiest people in America, and I at least am willing to accept that small price to pay.


Of course if you truly want to help the poor you should give the money to an organization that does something to actually help the poor instead of the Government. Do you think there should be Bureaucracy at work when it comes to helping the poor?

If you truly want to get rid of the debt tell your political partners to quit spending money on useless ventures that ultimately benefit no-one.
Also you can tell them to quit spending money on school since it is a State issue not a Federal issue on how schools succeed or fail.

Tell them Socialized Healthcare is not the way, because I want to choose my Doctor not have one chosen for me plus I don't want to flip the bill for someone who harms themselves.

Tell them Social Security is a failed system that needs to be done away with, if the money they took away from people were put into Mutual Funds instead of being put into a Government-Dependent system everybody would be better off and the debt would shrink with less money being thrown into a bottomless pit.

Tell them Corporate Welfare is not good for our Government, kick Ronald McDonald off Welfare, and tell them to quit funding advertising campaigns for overseas ventures.

I can understand taxes to pay off our debt but both the Democrats and Republicans want to keep a system of Tax and Spend. Do you really think Kerry or Bush will cut the debt in half with the amount of programs they have encouraged or encourage with their plans?

- Grim X
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't believe that high taxes for the rich are fair, but I believe they are justified and acceptable, and it is the price you pay for being the wealthiest people in America, and I at least am willing to accept that small price to pay.


Are you one of the wealthiest people in America?

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #7 By: Citizen Messy Buu - 10/17/2004 4:17:12 PM

Are you one of the wealthiest people in America?


Citizen sandy2 Posted: Friday, October 15, 2004

I don't know about the situations of the other liberals on JU, but I can tell you right now that I am in the top tax paying bracket, and earn a considerable ammount of money from both the stock market and dividends.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh ok, thanks!
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Oh ok, thanks!


No Problem!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, if I get this right, you don't like high taxes for rich people, but think they are justified. Here are my questions for you.

1) What justifies higher taxes on the rich, or high taxes on the rich?

2) While some people are born rich, most rich men and women have to work, or their families have had to work hard to make the money they have. Why would you punish these people for working hard and using their money in a fiscally responsible manner?

3) Why do you believe that the rich should support the poor? Please do not take this out of context. What I mean is, why should the rich have to use their accumulated wealth to have people feed off of them?

Your statement that wealthier depend more on the government is, in my view, inadequite. Wealthier people depend on protection from the government, but so do the middle and lower class citizens as well. The Fed does insure their money, but the Fed insures all banked money. People dependent on welfare who refuse to try and get a job are dependent on the government, and to some extent, dependent on middle class citizens who pay their taxes. Lower income families receive more aid in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc. Please explain to a fuller extent why wealthy people are more dependent on the government.

As for the government paying for university for all students, I feel that this topic should be discussed in a different blog.

Peace,

Beebes


What justifies the tax on the rich is that the rich get more back from the government than the poor. Let me explain: the rich have the most accumulated wealth, by far, and the government protects this accumulated wealth in more than one way, first by providing physical security, through the military or the police to protect the wealth, and second by (at least for bank accounts) insures the wealth. Further, a reason that it is justified is the tax breaks (and loopholes) that are open to the rich. If these were closed, I would feel less like the high taxes are/ would be justified.

Let me also qualify my statement with this: I don't believe that the government should collect taxes to help the welfare of the poor. Well, I mean food stamps are good but I don't beleive that the taxes for this should be paid by the wealthy only, and therefore I would like it if taxes such as these were taken on a flat level. Correct me if I am mistaken, but Social Security works like that? Also, I think that a higher tax is not peanilizing the wealthy, but on the contrary for example letting the debt grow bigger would be harmfull to the wealthiest people in the country.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you truly want to get rid of the debt tell your political partners to quit spending money on useless ventures that ultimately benefit no-one.
Also you can tell them to quit spending money on school since it is a State issue not a Federal issue on how schools succeed or fail.


By uslless ventures you mean for example things snuck into appropriations bills? Like say a study on how to use wood costing $1 million? If so, then I agree we should do away with these, and we should do it by passing into law a prohibition of this sort of nonsense.

Tell them Socialized Healthcare is not the way, because I want to choose my Doctor not have one chosen for me plus I don't want to flip the bill for someone who harms themselves.


Well, in this issue I take the stance of John Kerry, and present to you a non-socialized health care system.


Tell them Social Security is a failed system that needs to be done away with, if the money they took away from people were put into Mutual Funds instead of being put into a Government-Dependent system everybody would be better off and the debt would shrink with less money being thrown into a bottomless pit.


Yes, however I don't know about you, but I want the money I have put in it back. Therefore, we can't just scrap it. Also, many people would be better off, (and this may sound rude, but I think you will agree) however many people do not know what is best for themselves and will not invest wisley, and instead will spend the money on smokes and alcohol, and therefore it ends up HAVING to be the governments role to invest money for these people. That said, I think we should say listen, you have choices a,b,c,d,e,f,g -z to invest this money, which do you want.

Tell them Corporate Welfare is not good for our Government, kick Ronald McDonald off Welfare, and tell them to quit funding advertising campaigns for overseas ventures.

I agree corporate welfare, except in times of need (i.e. airline bailout after 9/11) is insane and needs to be stopped.

I can understand taxes to pay off our debt but both the Democrats and Republicans want to keep a system of Tax and Spend. Do you really think Kerry or Bush will cut the debt in half with the amount of programs they have encouraged or encourage with their plans?


No, and I think this is a fault with both of them. I can tell you this: Bush will not cut the debt at all, and whether Kerry will no one can say for sure, though since the last democrat did cut the deficit, he will have pressure on him from his party to do so.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, if you are interested in the education thing, I did start antoher post for that, and it can be seen here:
Education Reform
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I guess I do refuse to respect the rich. Or anyone else based on their bank account for that matter. I've found a lot of wealthy people care first and foremost about making and keeping money. It's like an addiction. Glad to see that there are some top tax bracket folks not that way. Personally, I went into the job field I'm in knowing that being wealthy was not part of the deal -- as long as I've got that roof over me and something to eat, I'm pretty satisfied.

Most poor people I know don't envy the rich. Or look up to them. Or really think about them at all. Hope that didn't hurt anybody's ego out there.

Cheers, Sandy, good post.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
1) What justifies higher taxes on the rich, or high taxes on the rich?


Equal taxes on the rich would be just fine. Since the weathly don't earn a traditional paycheck they don't have to pay payroll taxes in the same manner. I paid 33% last year, Cheney paid 18%. I guess I could set up a dummy offshore company to invest in and portray as a loss of income but what would I live on if I stashed all of my money away. I think the rich must hate America or they would pay their fair share to support the system that has allowed them to prosper.

Bottom line, somebody making 2 million a year is a pretty nasty person for opposing a raise in the minimum wage from $5.15. I would think most people would value the most unskilled persons honest labor more than $5.15 an hour. I would say the rich don't have respect for the poor if they think so little of the value of their labor.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
I paid 33% last year, Cheney paid 18%. I guess I could set up a dummy offshore company to invest in and portray as a loss of income but what would I live on if I stashed all of my money away


Generosity helped account for the Cheneys' relatively low tax rate. The Cheneys donated $321,141 to charity, mostly royalties from Mrs. Cheney's books...

That contrasts with the Cheney's Federal tax payment of $241,392.

Also, John Kerry paid an effective rate of 22% (filing separately) and paid no property taxes on his half dozen mansions (must be in Theresa's tax return)

As far as the tax cut. The bottom end bracket got an immediate 5% reduction (2001) as well as an expansion of the Earned Income Credit, made the Child Tax Credit refundable (meaning, even if they have no tax liability they can still get a refund) and the top end of the bands increase (i.e. top off 10% bracket was $6000, in 2004 is $7150). The other brackets got a lower tax cut on a percentage basis than did the bottom (what was a 35% bracket is now 33%). The top bracket ($310,000 about) was reduced from 39.6% to 38.6% in 2001and in 2004 will be 35% (the argument in support of this is the sole proprietor/small business owner argument - agree with it or not).

There is nothing stopping anyone from paying additional taxes if they choose to.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, in this issue I take the stance of John Kerry, and present to you a non-socialized health care system.


This is a major stretch. Read the independent analyses of the Kerry Health Plan (the most independent one is the Lewin Groups at www.lewin.com). The Kerry plans insures 25 million uninsured, 21.6 million of the newly insured go on Medicaid (Lewin Group estimates). The number leaving their employer paid coverage (and opting for the CHP - Congressional Health Plan) is unable to be accurately estimated due to incomplete information provided by the Kerry team.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is it for me, I am off to skulk around some more before I go off and read some Ayn Rand coupled with Robert Anton Wilson.


I am reading "Atlas Shrugged" atm. I like it so far and I am quite curious how the story and her philosophy will progress.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
I am reading "Atlas Shrugged" atm. I like it so far and I am quite curious how the story and her philosophy will progress.


Have not got around to reading 'Atlas Shrugged' yet, been busy with school and right now I have to study for a Sociology open-book, essay-question exam.