OT – Joe the Plumber

[an]

[quote=patientlywaiting]I think that people who own a certain share of wealth should contribute a commensurate share to the society that creates the wealth and protects the value of that wealth.

If you go back to early feudal times, the Lord of the land owned the land but it was his responsibility to provide protection and food during lean time to his subjects. It was also the Lord’s responsibility to hold feasts and celebrations during holidays. Over time, that contract was broken and that created revolution.

If a group owns 95% of the wealth, it would be fair for that group to pay 95% of the taxes.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, our tax system is not a black and white system, where you’re either wealthy or you’re broke. It’s not as black and white as Lord and subjects. There are many who are actually in the gray area.

What do you consider wealth? Is it income you get from your W-2 or is it $ you made from investments? By your logic, if your family make $100k or above, you’re in the top 85%, should you pay 85% of hte taxes as well? Remember, median household income in America is around 40-50k. That’s dual income making that much. To many people, if your family make over $100k, you’re wealthy and are in the top 85% already. Is a family making $100k in Manhattan wealthier than a family in Omaha making $60k?

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor] Guess what, tall people get better jobs then short people. Attractive people get more breaks then ugly people. Are all tall people assholes? Should they be taxed more?
[/quote]

Randy says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

If we deported short and ugly people, Monte Carlo simulations I had the geeks at the Government Sachs

run showed that tax revenues from Laffer curve would increase by 4.20%!

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor] Guess what, tall people get better jobs then short people. Attractive people get more breaks then ugly people. Are all tall people assholes? Should they be taxed more?
[/quote]

Randy says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

If we deported short and ugly people, Monte Carlo simulations I had the geeks at the Government Sachs

run showed that tax revenues from Laffer curve would increase by 4.20%!

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor] Guess what, tall people get better jobs then short people. Attractive people get more breaks then ugly people. Are all tall people assholes? Should they be taxed more?
[/quote]

Randy says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

If we deported short and ugly people, Monte Carlo simulations I had the geeks at the Government Sachs

run showed that tax revenues from Laffer curve would increase by 4.20%!

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor] Guess what, tall people get better jobs then short people. Attractive people get more breaks then ugly people. Are all tall people assholes? Should they be taxed more?
[/quote]

Randy says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

If we deported short and ugly people, Monte Carlo simulations I had the geeks at the Government Sachs

run showed that tax revenues from Laffer curve would increase by 4.20%!

[equalizer]

[quote=SD Realtor] Guess what, tall people get better jobs then short people. Attractive people get more breaks then ugly people. Are all tall people assholes? Should they be taxed more?
[/quote]

Randy says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

If we deported short and ugly people, Monte Carlo simulations I had the geeks at the Government Sachs

run showed that tax revenues from Laffer curve would increase by 4.20%!

[SD Realtor]

PW where do you draw the line?

Look my fundamental problem is that it becomes arbitrary. Also today, this very day there is very much a large disparity between what the wealthy pay in taxes.

Again, I don’t like the fact that I am not one of them. Believe me I want to be one of them. However don’t you think it is a slippery slope?

I will ask you,

Why limit the concept of sharing wealth to the wealthy? Why not middle class? Why not anyone who makes $X or $Y? Again, I am trying to simply apply logic here and I am not getting logical responses.

PW, why shouldn’t you or I pay more? Where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn there? Don’t you see this is in itself a form of class warfare.

Look the travesty of all this is a monstrosity of confusion that will be construed as racism. This is sad. I think one of the very best things in this country would be for a black man/women, or hispanic, asian, or whoever to be president. Damn I wish Colin Powell would have run. I don’t care about the color of the skin, or the party they are in. Yes there is no doubt, racism is alive and well in this country and that is a fact. Racism runs hand in hand with ignorance and as much as I oppose the distribution of wealth that Obama will enact, I realize many will not vote for him due to the color of his skin. This is pathetic.

I am even all for some sort of social contract to help poverty. Yet YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT A CLASS TO SUPPORT IT. Fine if you think there is a moral responsibility to support the impoverished then EVERYBODY should pay it. Me, you, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, and Breeze… EVERYONE. At least come with an argument that is morally right and logical. It does not compute to penalize those that are successful. If they made the money legally they did it legally. If the tax code if f’d up then fix the tax code. However I cannot find logic in pushing a social contract of sorts on only a single group of people.

[SD Realtor]

PW where do you draw the line?

Look my fundamental problem is that it becomes arbitrary. Also today, this very day there is very much a large disparity between what the wealthy pay in taxes.

Again, I don’t like the fact that I am not one of them. Believe me I want to be one of them. However don’t you think it is a slippery slope?

I will ask you,

Why limit the concept of sharing wealth to the wealthy? Why not middle class? Why not anyone who makes $X or $Y? Again, I am trying to simply apply logic here and I am not getting logical responses.

PW, why shouldn’t you or I pay more? Where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn there? Don’t you see this is in itself a form of class warfare.

Look the travesty of all this is a monstrosity of confusion that will be construed as racism. This is sad. I think one of the very best things in this country would be for a black man/women, or hispanic, asian, or whoever to be president. Damn I wish Colin Powell would have run. I don’t care about the color of the skin, or the party they are in. Yes there is no doubt, racism is alive and well in this country and that is a fact. Racism runs hand in hand with ignorance and as much as I oppose the distribution of wealth that Obama will enact, I realize many will not vote for him due to the color of his skin. This is pathetic.

I am even all for some sort of social contract to help poverty. Yet YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT A CLASS TO SUPPORT IT. Fine if you think there is a moral responsibility to support the impoverished then EVERYBODY should pay it. Me, you, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, and Breeze… EVERYONE. At least come with an argument that is morally right and logical. It does not compute to penalize those that are successful. If they made the money legally they did it legally. If the tax code if f’d up then fix the tax code. However I cannot find logic in pushing a social contract of sorts on only a single group of people.

[SD Realtor]

PW where do you draw the line?

Look my fundamental problem is that it becomes arbitrary. Also today, this very day there is very much a large disparity between what the wealthy pay in taxes.

Again, I don’t like the fact that I am not one of them. Believe me I want to be one of them. However don’t you think it is a slippery slope?

I will ask you,

Why limit the concept of sharing wealth to the wealthy? Why not middle class? Why not anyone who makes $X or $Y? Again, I am trying to simply apply logic here and I am not getting logical responses.

PW, why shouldn’t you or I pay more? Where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn there? Don’t you see this is in itself a form of class warfare.

Look the travesty of all this is a monstrosity of confusion that will be construed as racism. This is sad. I think one of the very best things in this country would be for a black man/women, or hispanic, asian, or whoever to be president. Damn I wish Colin Powell would have run. I don’t care about the color of the skin, or the party they are in. Yes there is no doubt, racism is alive and well in this country and that is a fact. Racism runs hand in hand with ignorance and as much as I oppose the distribution of wealth that Obama will enact, I realize many will not vote for him due to the color of his skin. This is pathetic.

I am even all for some sort of social contract to help poverty. Yet YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT A CLASS TO SUPPORT IT. Fine if you think there is a moral responsibility to support the impoverished then EVERYBODY should pay it. Me, you, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, and Breeze… EVERYONE. At least come with an argument that is morally right and logical. It does not compute to penalize those that are successful. If they made the money legally they did it legally. If the tax code if f’d up then fix the tax code. However I cannot find logic in pushing a social contract of sorts on only a single group of people.

[SD Realtor]

PW where do you draw the line?

Look my fundamental problem is that it becomes arbitrary. Also today, this very day there is very much a large disparity between what the wealthy pay in taxes.

Again, I don’t like the fact that I am not one of them. Believe me I want to be one of them. However don’t you think it is a slippery slope?

I will ask you,

Why limit the concept of sharing wealth to the wealthy? Why not middle class? Why not anyone who makes $X or $Y? Again, I am trying to simply apply logic here and I am not getting logical responses.

PW, why shouldn’t you or I pay more? Where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn there? Don’t you see this is in itself a form of class warfare.

Look the travesty of all this is a monstrosity of confusion that will be construed as racism. This is sad. I think one of the very best things in this country would be for a black man/women, or hispanic, asian, or whoever to be president. Damn I wish Colin Powell would have run. I don’t care about the color of the skin, or the party they are in. Yes there is no doubt, racism is alive and well in this country and that is a fact. Racism runs hand in hand with ignorance and as much as I oppose the distribution of wealth that Obama will enact, I realize many will not vote for him due to the color of his skin. This is pathetic.

I am even all for some sort of social contract to help poverty. Yet YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT A CLASS TO SUPPORT IT. Fine if you think there is a moral responsibility to support the impoverished then EVERYBODY should pay it. Me, you, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, and Breeze… EVERYONE. At least come with an argument that is morally right and logical. It does not compute to penalize those that are successful. If they made the money legally they did it legally. If the tax code if f’d up then fix the tax code. However I cannot find logic in pushing a social contract of sorts on only a single group of people.

[SD Realtor]

PW where do you draw the line?

Look my fundamental problem is that it becomes arbitrary. Also today, this very day there is very much a large disparity between what the wealthy pay in taxes.

Again, I don’t like the fact that I am not one of them. Believe me I want to be one of them. However don’t you think it is a slippery slope?

I will ask you,

Why limit the concept of sharing wealth to the wealthy? Why not middle class? Why not anyone who makes $X or $Y? Again, I am trying to simply apply logic here and I am not getting logical responses.

PW, why shouldn’t you or I pay more? Where does the line get drawn and why does it get drawn there? Don’t you see this is in itself a form of class warfare.

Look the travesty of all this is a monstrosity of confusion that will be construed as racism. This is sad. I think one of the very best things in this country would be for a black man/women, or hispanic, asian, or whoever to be president. Damn I wish Colin Powell would have run. I don’t care about the color of the skin, or the party they are in. Yes there is no doubt, racism is alive and well in this country and that is a fact. Racism runs hand in hand with ignorance and as much as I oppose the distribution of wealth that Obama will enact, I realize many will not vote for him due to the color of his skin. This is pathetic.

I am even all for some sort of social contract to help poverty. Yet YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT A CLASS TO SUPPORT IT. Fine if you think there is a moral responsibility to support the impoverished then EVERYBODY should pay it. Me, you, Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, and Breeze… EVERYONE. At least come with an argument that is morally right and logical. It does not compute to penalize those that are successful. If they made the money legally they did it legally. If the tax code if f’d up then fix the tax code. However I cannot find logic in pushing a social contract of sorts on only a single group of people.

[gandalf]

Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08

[gandalf]

Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08

[gandalf]

Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08

[gandalf]

Interesting how ‘socialism’ has become the talking point of the day.

Are any of you defenders of the flag willing to discuss the impact of tax avoidance strategies on US tax policy? Because overall, tax policy in the last couple of decades has become substantially regressive for those with access.

I don’t support redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of wealth upwards is insidious. It’s ethically disgusting and it is screwing the majority of people in this country. It ought to be a crime punishable with dismemberment by an angry mob.

Many of you have been crying like babies over the bailout. You disagree with wealth redistribution, and object to “infusing” the banking system with taxpayer money to rescue Fat Cat bankers, flippers and cheats.

The bailout is the most regressive financial swindle in the history of this country. Current tax policy is regressive. You oppose the bailout, but you support a regressive tax policy. Do you see the contradition in your position? So you’re what … hypocrites?

Those of you out there complaining about tax policy as if it were socialism are either deceived or worse, “Deceivers”. It’s one of the two. Reminds me of that saying about card cheats, if you can’t figure out who’s cheating, you shouldn’t be at the table.

Finally, I’ll add that arguing with such vitriol about relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates and policy while we’re fighting two wars and battling a major economic crisis in our country is pretty shitty.

Obama / Biden in ’08

[Author]

Posts