Posted on 04/15/2002 4:34:52 AM PDT by Fintan
It means the selfish ones are those who seek to take others money, not those who seek to keep their own.
I'd support ditching the income tax. Won't happen.
However, while we have it, there's no excusing that the wealthiest indeed get the greatest benefit from a vibrant economy, low crime and relative peace abroad. We should probably adjust the upper bracket so mutli-millionaires and multi-billionaires pay a share more in line to the overall benefit they've received. At such levels, money is just making more money. It has little to do with their continued daily effort, nor even really what their contribution is worth to humanity.
Perhaps a special sportsman and entertainer tax is in order for all those nothings which contribute only to the decay of decency and morality to pay us for having to put up with them. And no more damned tax-payer funded ballbarks, too.
There was one op-ed in the local paper on Sunday suggesting, in essense, it wasn't fair that the poorest 50% don't pay 50% of all taxes. The writer, somewhere off in an alternate reality, neglects to realize any tax on the poor has a bigger impact on that person's or family's buying power. These aren't people of means. At those levels it can mean passing on necessary health care and I'm not talking about vanity or lifestyle indulgences like birth-control pills and viagra but full-time care for an dementia patient who is too dangerous to be cared for at home any longer.
To someone in the upper brackets, and yet they too can live beyond their means but who have the financial resources and management resources available to them to more easily avoid it, such costs are hardly an issue at all. Consider Limbaugh and his not bothering with health care insurance and HMOs, instead using his financial means to pay as he needs. Damned few are in his position. Most must wait two, three months in the HMO queue for kidney or liver ultrasounds, colonoscopies, and other tests.
We can't all be in the top 1%. The economy, from a business and consumer angle demands a majority of people at lower income levels to fill critical, if often menial tasks. We can't all be making $150,000/year. Businesses and conservatives already grouse at increases in minimum wage, imagine if we were all paid like lawyers (or, in some places, like teachers!).
Sometimes I wonder if Democrat's solution is to import (near) slave labour in the form of illegal immigration and the Republican solution is to rent near, or actual, slave labour in foreign countries all the while both are gleeful as our investment portfolios bloom and we drag on our health care system with habits of excess drink, smoking, and unhealthy diets. At least Rush, being able to pay in full, dodges the hypocrasy yolk by not being a drag on HMO costs and contributing to the need for higher premiums.
Or not.
nice try but you missed the point
do the math .....
take money from 49 % of the people
give to 51 % of the people =
perpetual power.
Is this April 1st?
Nah--the selfish ones are those who seek to take others money for THEMSELVES. They aren't nearly as dangerous as those suffering from "Robin Hood Syndrome", in which they decide to take money from you and give it to "someone more deserving" in order to enhance their own self-esteem.
The income tax is unfair and needs to be eliminated in favor of user fees and consumption taxes so everyone will pay the taxes. If you buy it or use it, then pay a tax. Today, the vast majority of self-employed folks are tax cheats, never reporting all of their income, and living off salaried folks like leeches.
The wealthiest, BY DEFINITION, are responsible for the "vibrant economy".
It's *NOT* altruism. It's offering a return on investment to stakeholders and an investment in goverment to help ensure favourable geo-political, economic climate, and delivery of services (water, power, etc.).
It ought to be a self-realization that as one of these top-tier people, you wouldn't have two dimes to rub together without the low end buying your increasingly pathetic wares and (no) services. That would be altruistic or simply just a willingness to give something back to stakeholders.
As it is, to fatten your bottom line you've unemployed the Americans for slaves in China or some Asian-Pacific paradise, or imported them. To fatten your bottom line you've begged the government to help you negotiate a deal with a foreign nation or taken advantage of a new economic pact. You're not doing all that much, and probably didn't do all that much to start off in the scheme of contribution to humanity. You've just become a successful snake-oil salesman (from Gates to Sheen to Woods) while watching your money make more money. Or you're a lawyer suing some industry for some windfall judgement that'll pay you $50,000 per minute in legal fees. Or some "esteemed" member of government.
Having said that, I should add that we could move our tax system a giant step closer to fairness, by replacing income taxes (individual and corporate) with consumption taxes, and by transforming as many governmental activities as possible from tax-funded to fee-for-service. People generally demonstrate greater equanimity about consumption taxes, which are simple to calculate, don't justify invasions of their privacy, and don't require complex recordkeeping and return preparation. They tend to view fee-for-service as inherently fair -- "You ought to pay for what you get." There's probably a role for uniform import and export tariffs, too.
Of course, what I'm suggesting would be a whole lot easier if the government's activities were limited to its Constitutional functions. Sigh.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
There is also no getting past the fact that, by and large, the wealthiest are the folks who created this vibrant economy. The richest folks you'll find are also the ones who took the greatest risk and succeeded by contributing greatly to the welfare of consumers.
Perhaps a special sportsman and entertainer tax is in order for all those nothings which contribute only to the decay of decency and morality to pay us for having to put up with them. And no more damned tax-payer funded ballbarks, too.
I'm with you on the ballparks. But a sportsman and entertainer tax? Are you serious? If you are serious, have you ever thought about the ramifications of government dictating "morally proper" versus "improper" jobs?
There was one op-ed in the local paper on Sunday suggesting, in essense, it wasn't fair that the poorest 50% don't pay 50% of all taxes.
Are you sure the suggestion wasn't that the lowest 50% would pay the same tax as a percent of their income? Only an imbecile would advocate the lowest 50% paying 50% of the actual tax dollars.
The writer, somewhere off in an alternate reality, neglects to realize any tax on the poor has a bigger impact on that person's or family's buying power. These aren't people of means. At those levels it can mean passing on necessary health care and I'm not talking about vanity or lifestyle indulgences like birth-control pills and viagra but full-time care for an dementia patient who is too dangerous to be cared for at home any longer.
While you certainly paint a sympathetic picture of the poor dementia patient being deprived of meds by "The Man", I remain unconvinced. Indeed, I would suggest if the poor paid as large a percentage of their income to the government as the rich do, taxes overall would be a far lower burden on everyone. "The Poor" would never shoulder the burden "The Rich" currently do.
To someone in the upper brackets, and yet they too can live beyond their means but who have the financial resources and management resources available to them to more easily avoid it, such costs are hardly an issue at all. Consider Limbaugh and his not bothering with health care insurance and HMOs, instead using his financial means to pay as he needs. Damned few are in his position. Most must wait two, three months in the HMO queue for kidney or liver ultrasounds, colonoscopies, and other tests.
What's your point? Rush Limbaugh discovered the public holds him, as a commodity, in high demand. He is well-paid for his talents. How is it that other people are morally entitled to HIS well-earned money?
We can't all be in the top 1%. The economy, from a business and consumer angle demands a majority of people at lower income levels to fill critical, if often menial tasks. We can't all be making $150,000/year. Businesses and conservatives already grouse at increases in minimum wage, imagine if we were all paid like lawyers (or, in some places, like teachers!).
No, we can't all be in the top 1%. Only the brightest and hardest working among us will achieve that status. Perhaps some will choose family over work (and that's a great choice, IMHO). Others are simply not as smart or diligent; that's just the way it goes. Others will be subject to bad luck, etc.
Bottom line: What right does Person A have to appropriate Person B's money? If you can explain how that is moral, you stand a chance of changing my mind. However, I would suggest you face an impossible task in doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.