CaveDog

Lets see....

You have a good point in your posting, but that comment did nothing for your case. I think very few people actually think that being rich is a "sin".

__________________
--
CaveDog
"Go sell crazy somewhere else... we're all stocked up here."

USN_Squid

sorry....I don't see the childish behaviour link.

__________________

USN_Squid

Q: How many John Kerrys does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: At least four. One to unscrew the old lightbulb. One to simultaneously announce his courageous commitment to replacing the old bulb. One to vote against funding the new light bulb. And one to denounce George W. Bush and America's Benedict Arnold CEOs for leaving everyone in the dark.

Q: Why did John Kerry cross the road?

A: He didn't cross the road. He crossed to the middle to demonstrate his grasp of the nuances and subtleties involved in crossing the road, and was still explaining them to the New York Times reporter when the logging truck hit him.

__________________

leejo

Nice! Of course the logging truck wouldn't have been there if Bush hadn't opened the area up for logging (never mind the overwhelming majority who voted for it in Congress, including Kerry), so that's Bush's fault too.

Bush is a liar and stupid too! And Aristide was kidnapped!

Wolfie

Then why do we punish people who have more money if it isn't considered a sin?

Tax is a punishment, no matter what you call it.

If everyone is taxed the same way (i.e. everyone contributes the same percentage that goes into a large pool which benefits the entire country), then you can not complain about that.

However, right now, if you earn above a certain amount, you pay a higher tax rate. Why? What did you do to deserve to have more of your money taken away compared to someone in a lower bracket?

And why do Democrats make a big deal about it when Republicans reduce the tax rate for those who are wealthy by 2 -3 percent if they pay around 10 percent or more compared to everyone else?

_Ender_

If people thought being rich was a sin, then we wouldnt keep electing rich people into office...

Fait_Maker

How can we not elect a rich person to office when it costs so much to campaign that most people are locked out of it?

__________________

_Ender_

That's an excuse, not a reason.

CaveDog

what?

I'm not really offended by stuipd jokes, but wtf? Start another thread about silly political jokes or something.

__________________
--
CaveDog
"Go sell crazy somewhere else... we're all stocked up here."

CaveDog

I don't really agree that rich people should pay more, but the fact is that rich people need their money less than poor people do. A poor person has to spend around 100% on needs (do they all do? no, that is another discussion, one that mostly invalidates this one, but entirely another discussion) A rich person, however, must spend significantly less on needs. The rest they can buy cool stuff or better stuff. Thus, they have more expendable income to be taxed. I don't totally agree with this, and I don't totally agree that it works, but the govermnment is trying to tax expendable income without doing to hard work needed to do something more fair.

I'm sure that equates to socialism is some way, but I guess it is the most fair way they could come up with. (just giving congress the benifit of the doubt here...) The simple fact that the rich can afford tax shelters and such (most of those kinds of investments require large initial investments, making them unavailable to even most middle class) make a situation that it is not politically necisary to make a better system.

__________________
--
CaveDog
"Go sell crazy somewhere else... we're all stocked up here."

CaveDog

Well, I guess that is why every election is so often "the lesser of two evils". So often, we elect people that can raise money or have money, instead of people that can do a good job.

__________________
--
CaveDog
"Go sell crazy somewhere else... we're all stocked up here."

Fait_Maker

It's not an excuse. It is reality. Those who are not rich do not get to play the political game at the highest level. It is pretty much locked out for them. You put a "poor" person in office and if he stands for what I do, yes, I'll vote for him. We'll never know though. Will we?

BTW, I'm just throwing this out there to make a point. I don't think being rich is a sin.

__________________

Fait_Maker

*** Edit***
A rich person does not spend significantly less on needs. We all have the same needs. A rich person probably spends more on needs since they tend not to bargain hunt. However, I will assume you mean "by percentage of income". Also, I don't remember anywhere in our documents that it says that expendable income is what is to be taxed. The bottom line is that our current tax code is off, not fair, nor is it trustworthy. Those who have money tend to find the biggest shelters so they don't have to part with it. I can't even afford to buy a house right now and that's the biggest best tax investment someone of my income can look to find. Consumption tax is the way to go. Sales tax is the way to go.

*** end edit***

This is not socialism. Socialism is the government taking care of every citizens basic needs. Food, shelter, healthcare, etc. They usually do so by owning the largest enterprises in the country and using the profit from that to pay the way. As a general rule, Socialism cannot exist in a Capatilist state.

If you want fair, charge more tax on sales and drop the income tax completely. The more you buy, the more you pay tax. Charge tax on everything, including food. You want a lb of prime steak instead of ground beef, you'll pay for it. Those with expendable income will still carry the burden of tax but they'll do it by choice.

__________________

Wolfie

So, are you trying to tell me that a doctor earning 6 figures a year does not deserve his money as much as someone that goes into a factory every day to make widgits?

CaveDog

Hardly. Where did you get that idea? Not from the quoted part of my post, and not from any of the posts either. Please re-read my posts if you need a refresher.

Applying your example of the doctor to my retoric, I didn't say that the doctor deserved his money any less, but that he needed it less.

Is this fair. Not totally. Want to change it to something more "fair"? Go right ahead. You think the language is heated now in the country with the rich vs. poor argument. sheesh.

__________________
--
CaveDog
"Go sell crazy somewhere else... we're all stocked up here."