Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich”

[jficquette]

PatentGuy,

I wasn’t clear but maximizing revenue by enforcement of the current laws, not that the laws were intended to maximize revenue.

Thanks,

John

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John
[/quote]

I’m not a religious person in the least, but I’ve always liked the underlying message of the Serenity Prayer, and I think it applies here:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

First of all – again – as a libertarian-lite I’m somewhat sympathetic to what you’re saying here on taxes. I have similar concerns. But at the end of the day I’m a pragmatist. And things aren’t going to change dramatically. It’s just not gonna happen.

You asked, so I’ll tell you where we’re headed in “50, 100 years from now.” Watered-down European socialism. Europe, Russia and Asia have been moving to the right for two decades now. The U.S. has been slowly moving to the left for over 100 years. We’re going to meet in the middle – the point where no one’s particularly happy with the result, but few are pissed off enough to revolt. That’s the nature of democracy and that’s where we’re headed. Yes, there will be national health care – my bet is within the next two decades. Taxes are going higher and will be increasingly progressive. But it won’t be the end of the world. It will just be “blah.” England, Sweden, France. We are on the march toward the murky middle ground and there’s no stopping it.

I will say, however, that folks like yourself tend to assume that the top 1% of earners got there purely by hard work and moxy. I would argue that a large part of any wealthy person’s success is also tied to, for lack of a better word, “luck.” Behind any fortune is a lot of luck. (And, for that matter, behind most spectacular failures is some bad luck.) Period. While I personally don’t begrudge anyone their luck, I can understand the philosophical view that, “If part of extreme success is rooted in luck (or randomness), then why shouldn’t we tax that good fortune heavily?” It’s a seductive argument that’s difficult to counter but with some level of sophistry.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John
[/quote]

I’m not a religious person in the least, but I’ve always liked the underlying message of the Serenity Prayer, and I think it applies here:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

First of all – again – as a libertarian-lite I’m somewhat sympathetic to what you’re saying here on taxes. I have similar concerns. But at the end of the day I’m a pragmatist. And things aren’t going to change dramatically. It’s just not gonna happen.

You asked, so I’ll tell you where we’re headed in “50, 100 years from now.” Watered-down European socialism. Europe, Russia and Asia have been moving to the right for two decades now. The U.S. has been slowly moving to the left for over 100 years. We’re going to meet in the middle – the point where no one’s particularly happy with the result, but few are pissed off enough to revolt. That’s the nature of democracy and that’s where we’re headed. Yes, there will be national health care – my bet is within the next two decades. Taxes are going higher and will be increasingly progressive. But it won’t be the end of the world. It will just be “blah.” England, Sweden, France. We are on the march toward the murky middle ground and there’s no stopping it.

I will say, however, that folks like yourself tend to assume that the top 1% of earners got there purely by hard work and moxy. I would argue that a large part of any wealthy person’s success is also tied to, for lack of a better word, “luck.” Behind any fortune is a lot of luck. (And, for that matter, behind most spectacular failures is some bad luck.) Period. While I personally don’t begrudge anyone their luck, I can understand the philosophical view that, “If part of extreme success is rooted in luck (or randomness), then why shouldn’t we tax that good fortune heavily?” It’s a seductive argument that’s difficult to counter but with some level of sophistry.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John
[/quote]

I’m not a religious person in the least, but I’ve always liked the underlying message of the Serenity Prayer, and I think it applies here:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

First of all – again – as a libertarian-lite I’m somewhat sympathetic to what you’re saying here on taxes. I have similar concerns. But at the end of the day I’m a pragmatist. And things aren’t going to change dramatically. It’s just not gonna happen.

You asked, so I’ll tell you where we’re headed in “50, 100 years from now.” Watered-down European socialism. Europe, Russia and Asia have been moving to the right for two decades now. The U.S. has been slowly moving to the left for over 100 years. We’re going to meet in the middle – the point where no one’s particularly happy with the result, but few are pissed off enough to revolt. That’s the nature of democracy and that’s where we’re headed. Yes, there will be national health care – my bet is within the next two decades. Taxes are going higher and will be increasingly progressive. But it won’t be the end of the world. It will just be “blah.” England, Sweden, France. We are on the march toward the murky middle ground and there’s no stopping it.

I will say, however, that folks like yourself tend to assume that the top 1% of earners got there purely by hard work and moxy. I would argue that a large part of any wealthy person’s success is also tied to, for lack of a better word, “luck.” Behind any fortune is a lot of luck. (And, for that matter, behind most spectacular failures is some bad luck.) Period. While I personally don’t begrudge anyone their luck, I can understand the philosophical view that, “If part of extreme success is rooted in luck (or randomness), then why shouldn’t we tax that good fortune heavily?” It’s a seductive argument that’s difficult to counter but with some level of sophistry.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John
[/quote]

I’m not a religious person in the least, but I’ve always liked the underlying message of the Serenity Prayer, and I think it applies here:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

First of all – again – as a libertarian-lite I’m somewhat sympathetic to what you’re saying here on taxes. I have similar concerns. But at the end of the day I’m a pragmatist. And things aren’t going to change dramatically. It’s just not gonna happen.

You asked, so I’ll tell you where we’re headed in “50, 100 years from now.” Watered-down European socialism. Europe, Russia and Asia have been moving to the right for two decades now. The U.S. has been slowly moving to the left for over 100 years. We’re going to meet in the middle – the point where no one’s particularly happy with the result, but few are pissed off enough to revolt. That’s the nature of democracy and that’s where we’re headed. Yes, there will be national health care – my bet is within the next two decades. Taxes are going higher and will be increasingly progressive. But it won’t be the end of the world. It will just be “blah.” England, Sweden, France. We are on the march toward the murky middle ground and there’s no stopping it.

I will say, however, that folks like yourself tend to assume that the top 1% of earners got there purely by hard work and moxy. I would argue that a large part of any wealthy person’s success is also tied to, for lack of a better word, “luck.” Behind any fortune is a lot of luck. (And, for that matter, behind most spectacular failures is some bad luck.) Period. While I personally don’t begrudge anyone their luck, I can understand the philosophical view that, “If part of extreme success is rooted in luck (or randomness), then why shouldn’t we tax that good fortune heavily?” It’s a seductive argument that’s difficult to counter but with some level of sophistry.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette][quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John
[/quote]

I’m not a religious person in the least, but I’ve always liked the underlying message of the Serenity Prayer, and I think it applies here:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

First of all – again – as a libertarian-lite I’m somewhat sympathetic to what you’re saying here on taxes. I have similar concerns. But at the end of the day I’m a pragmatist. And things aren’t going to change dramatically. It’s just not gonna happen.

You asked, so I’ll tell you where we’re headed in “50, 100 years from now.” Watered-down European socialism. Europe, Russia and Asia have been moving to the right for two decades now. The U.S. has been slowly moving to the left for over 100 years. We’re going to meet in the middle – the point where no one’s particularly happy with the result, but few are pissed off enough to revolt. That’s the nature of democracy and that’s where we’re headed. Yes, there will be national health care – my bet is within the next two decades. Taxes are going higher and will be increasingly progressive. But it won’t be the end of the world. It will just be “blah.” England, Sweden, France. We are on the march toward the murky middle ground and there’s no stopping it.

I will say, however, that folks like yourself tend to assume that the top 1% of earners got there purely by hard work and moxy. I would argue that a large part of any wealthy person’s success is also tied to, for lack of a better word, “luck.” Behind any fortune is a lot of luck. (And, for that matter, behind most spectacular failures is some bad luck.) Period. While I personally don’t begrudge anyone their luck, I can understand the philosophical view that, “If part of extreme success is rooted in luck (or randomness), then why shouldn’t we tax that good fortune heavily?” It’s a seductive argument that’s difficult to counter but with some level of sophistry.

[CA renter]

denverite nailed it here:

…in absolute terms the upper class has MASSIVELY higer incomes and, as a result, even more massive disposable income (that which remains after “living expenses”), even with taxes. Over the years, those monies are compounded and result in huge disparities of wealth in a relatively short while. That is what we are now seeing. There comes a time when a balance must be attained.
————————-

jfckette (sp) claims that the top 1% have no control over taxes because “mob rule” will force their rates higher. I couldn’t disagree more. That 1% has FAR more control over all our laws than the bottom 99% ever will. They **own** the damn government!!!! It’s all about campaign contributions and networking with corporatists and politicians. It’s the productive saps (those who actually **work** for a living, not collect passive income) who have no control over money flows.

He who has the money has the power. He who has the power has the money. As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands, the power of those wealthy will grow, and they will do everything in their power to direct money (and power) back to themselves in a never-ending spiral.

This nonsense about the rich being taxed into poverty is a lame attempt to fool J6 into thinking the rich are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. B*llsh@t!!!!!

If the rich think it’s so much better being a working stiff (and paying “less” taxes), I’m sure people would line up around the globe to trade places with them!

Any volunteers???

[CA renter]

denverite nailed it here:

…in absolute terms the upper class has MASSIVELY higer incomes and, as a result, even more massive disposable income (that which remains after “living expenses”), even with taxes. Over the years, those monies are compounded and result in huge disparities of wealth in a relatively short while. That is what we are now seeing. There comes a time when a balance must be attained.
————————-

jfckette (sp) claims that the top 1% have no control over taxes because “mob rule” will force their rates higher. I couldn’t disagree more. That 1% has FAR more control over all our laws than the bottom 99% ever will. They **own** the damn government!!!! It’s all about campaign contributions and networking with corporatists and politicians. It’s the productive saps (those who actually **work** for a living, not collect passive income) who have no control over money flows.

He who has the money has the power. He who has the power has the money. As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands, the power of those wealthy will grow, and they will do everything in their power to direct money (and power) back to themselves in a never-ending spiral.

This nonsense about the rich being taxed into poverty is a lame attempt to fool J6 into thinking the rich are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. B*llsh@t!!!!!

If the rich think it’s so much better being a working stiff (and paying “less” taxes), I’m sure people would line up around the globe to trade places with them!

Any volunteers???

[CA renter]

denverite nailed it here:

…in absolute terms the upper class has MASSIVELY higer incomes and, as a result, even more massive disposable income (that which remains after “living expenses”), even with taxes. Over the years, those monies are compounded and result in huge disparities of wealth in a relatively short while. That is what we are now seeing. There comes a time when a balance must be attained.
————————-

jfckette (sp) claims that the top 1% have no control over taxes because “mob rule” will force their rates higher. I couldn’t disagree more. That 1% has FAR more control over all our laws than the bottom 99% ever will. They **own** the damn government!!!! It’s all about campaign contributions and networking with corporatists and politicians. It’s the productive saps (those who actually **work** for a living, not collect passive income) who have no control over money flows.

He who has the money has the power. He who has the power has the money. As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands, the power of those wealthy will grow, and they will do everything in their power to direct money (and power) back to themselves in a never-ending spiral.

This nonsense about the rich being taxed into poverty is a lame attempt to fool J6 into thinking the rich are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. B*llsh@t!!!!!

If the rich think it’s so much better being a working stiff (and paying “less” taxes), I’m sure people would line up around the globe to trade places with them!

Any volunteers???

[CA renter]

denverite nailed it here:

…in absolute terms the upper class has MASSIVELY higer incomes and, as a result, even more massive disposable income (that which remains after “living expenses”), even with taxes. Over the years, those monies are compounded and result in huge disparities of wealth in a relatively short while. That is what we are now seeing. There comes a time when a balance must be attained.
————————-

jfckette (sp) claims that the top 1% have no control over taxes because “mob rule” will force their rates higher. I couldn’t disagree more. That 1% has FAR more control over all our laws than the bottom 99% ever will. They **own** the damn government!!!! It’s all about campaign contributions and networking with corporatists and politicians. It’s the productive saps (those who actually **work** for a living, not collect passive income) who have no control over money flows.

He who has the money has the power. He who has the power has the money. As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands, the power of those wealthy will grow, and they will do everything in their power to direct money (and power) back to themselves in a never-ending spiral.

This nonsense about the rich being taxed into poverty is a lame attempt to fool J6 into thinking the rich are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. B*llsh@t!!!!!

If the rich think it’s so much better being a working stiff (and paying “less” taxes), I’m sure people would line up around the globe to trade places with them!

Any volunteers???

[CA renter]

denverite nailed it here:

…in absolute terms the upper class has MASSIVELY higer incomes and, as a result, even more massive disposable income (that which remains after “living expenses”), even with taxes. Over the years, those monies are compounded and result in huge disparities of wealth in a relatively short while. That is what we are now seeing. There comes a time when a balance must be attained.
————————-

jfckette (sp) claims that the top 1% have no control over taxes because “mob rule” will force their rates higher. I couldn’t disagree more. That 1% has FAR more control over all our laws than the bottom 99% ever will. They **own** the damn government!!!! It’s all about campaign contributions and networking with corporatists and politicians. It’s the productive saps (those who actually **work** for a living, not collect passive income) who have no control over money flows.

He who has the money has the power. He who has the power has the money. As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands, the power of those wealthy will grow, and they will do everything in their power to direct money (and power) back to themselves in a never-ending spiral.

This nonsense about the rich being taxed into poverty is a lame attempt to fool J6 into thinking the rich are having an increasingly difficult time making ends meet. B*llsh@t!!!!!

If the rich think it’s so much better being a working stiff (and paying “less” taxes), I’m sure people would line up around the globe to trade places with them!

Any volunteers???

[Author]

Posts