Obama's first failed appointment

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Redux

Pretty much explains why I support a progressive income tax....and I still aspire to the top tier...even if it means paying a higher percentage marginal tax rate. (not that I expect to make that top 1%)

Eh, the more I think about it the more I agree with Lookout's tax idea. I would change it to a small progressive tax then flat rate but the main point is to have a large sales tax. I don't know if he went into this, but I would make the sales tax "progressive" as well. Low sales tax for necessities (food, clothing, etc), higher for entertainment, and extremely high for luxury items.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Eh, the more I think about it the more I agree with Lookout's tax idea. I would change it to a small progressive tax then flat rate but the main point is to have a large sales tax. I don't know if he went into this, but I would make the sales tax "progressive" as well. Low sales tax for necessities (food, clothing, etc), higher for entertainment, and extremely high for luxury items.

I have said that wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem with the way it has been presented, is it would hit the lower income and middle class too much, and it would be much better for wealthier people. It will never ahppen though, because the people at the top would never stand for a high luxury tax on their playthings.

Honestly, I don't see what is so bad about a progressive income tax, without all the loopholes.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Honestly, I don't see what is so bad about a progressive income tax, without all the loopholes.

because the people who make it don't want to give it to people who don't.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

because the people who make it don't want to give it to people who don't.

I havent seen any data anywhere to support that.

By that I mean, the top taxpayers saying they pay too much.

The people making that claim are not the rich in many (most?) cases, but persons who are ideologically opposed to a progressive tax.

[Shawnee123]

Feds consider it income, and since the stat is a percentage increase as long as it's comparing the same income ingredients, it doesn't matter what you call it.

[lookout123]

Anyone, though, who continues to make excuses for the uber rich, and why they shouldn't pay more taxes, or why they deserve to be paid 500x the average worker, is a classist in my eyes.

Somewhere in our bickering I have expressed myself poorly if you think I am making excuses for anyone or believe someone deserves to earn a bajizillion dollars. My main point is that you spend all your energy on the rich and why they don't deserve what they have. I don't really care what they have and I'm not a big fan of the idea of deserving anything anyway. Lots of people deserve to be covered in rainbows and puppy dog kisses but are struck down by cancer. Others only deserve to cry in pain as their colon cancer and flesh eating bacteria race to see which will kill them but they get a bunch of money and a gold watch. That's life and it is what it is.

My problem with your approach is you spend so much time blaming the evil rich guy that you seem to lose sight of what is really hurting the poor. It isn't just a lack of dollars that hurts them. Instead of focusing on taking money from one to give to another, focus on helping those without to get for themselves. You know that whole "give a man a fish and feed him for a day" thing? I'm a big believer in that.

I probably sound narcissistic because I keep bringing up my own life, but that is the only real experience I have lived for myself so I know it to be true. I'm a fairly intelligent guy, but far from the smartest you'll meet. I grew up in a lower income factory family and now I'm middle class white collar. No one gave me anything to lift me from one category to the next and nothing about my character changed by getting a few more dollars. I saw my dad bust his ass for the ever shrinking carrot of a pension. While I respect the way my dad did it I also knew that life was not a viable option for my generation. I decided I needed a college education so I went into the military to pay for it. When I got out I worked multiple jobs and took out loans to finish school. After school I moved from career to career in my quest to gain experience and earn more money. In all honesty I enjoyed none of my jobs but they were necessary to move in the direction I wanted to go. Now I own my company in a fairly profitable industry. I happen to be very good at what I do so I'm well compensated but the truth is I don't actually enjoy what I'm doing now either. I would much rather be a school teacher and soccer coach BUT I had to weigh the options and I decided earning more money in a career I tolerate is more beneficial to my family than earning a teacher's wage in a career I'd love. It is a decision to sacrifice something in exchange for something I value - a life of comfort for my family.

That is what it all comes to for me - decisions and sacrifice. A couple of guys I went to school with I am just in awe of. One of them is a nationally recognized leader in a field he created and is a regular guest to the white house and featured in magazines. He chose to sacrifice a high income to follow a cause he believes in. It just so happens he became quite well known for doing that.

There are other guys I went to school with who are strangely in dead end jobs hovering along the edges of the lower end of working class bitching because they can't catch a break. The most talented guy I know makes $9 an hour and is angry at the world but refuses to accept responsibility for the life he lives. He has been offered jobs as a chef at high end restaurants. He has been asked to join a well known rock band when they needed a bassist but he declined. He had the opportunity to purchase a profitable business with no money out of pocket but said no. He refuses to live anywhere other than where he currently lives even though it is a dying area with no prospect for recovery. He chooses to stay and earn $9 an hour rather than sacrifice his desired location. In my mind he has exactly ZERO right to bitch about being broke. It is his choice.

While that is an extreme example it is the same for nearly everyone. The guy working as the night stocker at a grocery store is not a slave to the store, he has the ability to gain education and experiences and move up into different careers, but he has to decide that is what he wants to do. He has to have a goal. He won't go straight from stocker to CEO but there are no impossible to overcome roadblocks between those two jobs.

[sugarpop]

lookout, thank you for explaing your position better to me. I respect what you've done with your life, and you know, after you have all the money you need you could still teach.

I agree and understand that people make choices. The problem I have is that, as the gap grows and grows, and the people at the top make more and more, it leaves less for the average worker, and it makes it a lot more difficult for people who might want to achieve a comfortable living in the middle class but aren't really interested in working all the time and sacrificing other aspects of their life. It used to be a great life, being middle class. You didn't have to slave away for 80 hours a week and sacrifice having a family or a life. (yes, I know you can have a family and still work 80 hours a week, but what kind of family life is that?) You could work a normal 40 hours a week, have plenty of time to spend with your family (or doing other things if you didn't want a family), you could afford really good health care, afford to put some money away in a savings account, and it was available to both blue collar and white collar workers. That has slowly disappeared, and it makes me sad and it pisses me off, the way workers are treated.

Uh oh....time for a poll!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117472/Sa...are-Taxes.aspx

Only 19% of persons making over $75,000 say that "upper income people" pay too much.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Uh oh....time for a poll!

Polls are worthless statistical data points. Another circular discussion which you cannot support to be false.

More than $75000 must be your "rich"

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Polls are worthless statistical data points. Another circular discussion which you cannot support to be false.

People can take it for whatever they want. Its not for me or you to decide.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

People can take it for whatever they want. Its not for me or you to decide.

True dat. But I will continue to point out the over all statistical weakness of a poll.

The general public needs to understand the serious weakness of public opinion research in the U.S. Most public opinion polls (including ours) have to call and speak with about 4 people before one person agrees to participate in any survey. Since there is no way of knowing if the refusers have different or the same views as the accepters, there is no valid way to report that a poll really reflects the public viewpoint on anything. When polls report a margin of error (usually 3-5%, though our small sample size generated a statistic of 6-8%) they are, to put it gently, fibbing. What they should be saying is "if the people refusing to be polled were to have similar views to those polled, then the results reflect those of the general population with a margin of error of 3-5%". However, because the answer to the "if" is usually unknown, the actual potential error margin, in simple questioning, both in corporate media polls and in ours, is unknown but definitely larger than reported.

``Polls prove that people are stupid,'' said Hal Becker, who headed the Connecticut-based Futures Group, an outfit which specialized in sophisticated polling of the U.S. and other national populations.

``If you want an American to believe something, then all you have to do is get a poll taken that says it is so (and believe me, that is an easy thing to do, if you know how), and then get it publicized. You can tell somebody the Moon is made of green cheese--if the poll numbers say it is so, then the jerk reading them or watching them on the boob tube will believe it. Guaranteed.''

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/polls.htm

Thats cool..but I (and many professionals in a variety of fields) will still look at polls as one tool among many for a snapshot of public opinion ...and understand the limitations.

And you still cant point to any data that top taxpayers are bitching they pay too much.

The bitching is ideological....not income based.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

But you still cant point to any data that top taxpayers are bitching they pay too much.

The bitching is ideological....not income based.

Funny, because all we hear from those that pay little or no income tax is that the top earners earn to much and they want some of it. You can look around this forum and see data that supports that. They want it through the redistribution of those collected taxes as greater government spending for programs that support the no earners-payers.

While many studies answer the ques*tion of who pays taxes in America, the question of who gets the most government spending is often overlooked. Just as some Americans bear a larger portion of the nation's tax burden than others, some Americans also receive a larger share of the nation's government spending.

This report summarizes the key findings of a comprehensive 2007 Tax Foundation study of federal, state and local taxes and government spending. The results show that when we consider the distribution of government spending as well as taxes, it provides a dramatically altered view of how U.S. fiscal policy affects Americans at different income levels than is apparent from the distribution of tax burdens alone.

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Funny, because all we hear from those that pay little or no income tax is that the top earners earn to much and they want some of it. You can look around this forum and see data that supports that.

I make a very comfortable living and I dont think I pay too much and would have no complaints about paying more as my income rises.

Ideological.

BTW, many would consider the Tax Foundation to be ideological as well.

My complaint is with the complexity of the current tax code.

Again..there is no data that I have seen anywhere that top taxpayers believe in overwhelming numbers that they pay too much in taxes.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Funny, because all we hear from those that pay little or no income tax is that the top earners earn to much and they want some of it. You can look around this forum and see data that supports that. They want it through the redistribution of those collected taxes as greater government spending for programs that support the no earners-payers.



http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

My heart is pumping purple piss for them. No, really.