Californification of Washington
- Thread starter Whomp
- Start date
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I would rather having no tax at all, but that's a bit selfish and unfair on my part. I'll settle for low taxes then, preferably with low, fair taxes for all.
...But not if spending isn't addressed of course. Right-wing administrations have showed us the failure of low taxes and high spending.
The top marginal tax rate should be restored to 93%. I believe it was cut to 75% by FDR or Eisenhower or someone so I'm willing to settle for that, then Reagan went and gutted it and everything went down hill from there. Bring back real progressive taxation, bring back Glass-Stegall, nationalize the banks, nationalize the insurance industry, and only then will the country begin to grow again.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
TL Note: Karalysia is making a quasi-'moral' argument, not an economic argument. There is no reason, economically, to assume that such a high marginal tax rate would be optimal.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Some perspective for those whining about high taxes.
Some perspective for those whining about high taxes.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
93 seems a bit too high to me, but I wouldn't really mind high progressive taxation rates provided that you could lower your taxable income based on how much you invested/spent that year. Better they create jobs with it than the government get its grubby paws on it, I feel.
I'll have to pass on those unless you show me some evidence that'd be for the greater good of the economy and all those who are part of it...
@ Integral: I agree. If people can show me stats in favor of something, chances are I'll support it. Until then... it becomes reductio ad lol.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
"Hey colored people! Put things in perspective! So what if you face a little discrimination here and there and can't find a job, and if you do get one, usually it's dead end and pays crappy wages... You used to not be able to vote, attend schools with white children and we would also whip you if you so much as looked at us wrong! PERSPECTIVE!"
"Hey gay people! You can't complain about not being able to get married! At least now you aren't burned at the stake!
Perspective!!!""Hey demmies! You can't complain about not having the public option! You used to not have that nifty bill that was just passed!"
Sorry, that doesn't work very well with me...
Just because something sucks less, doesn't mean it doesn't suck.
...All right. You're going to have to explain this one to me. Do the rich get preferential treatment or something? Like, when a rich person's mansion is burning down, does the fire department show up more quickly then they would if it was a poor person's house burning down?
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I can't speak for Cutlass, and we'd likely disagree on some finer points regarding the wealthy, buuuut, for me:
It goes beyond what the services pay for. It goes to part of what the government stands for.
The government protects life...
...liberty...
annnnd...
Property.
If we were to collapse into anarchy, the only thing you could own was what you or people you associated with could physically protect, and obviously, the rich would have the most to lose from this situation, given that they're more dependent on private security and whatnot, unlike poor people, who's homes seem built to resist just about anything in nay case.
And that's just the home, which you can more or less protect yourself. Now leave that and talk about all the land, businesses, etc. you own.. In conclusion, the rich do in fact benefit the most from government, as they have the most to lose from its collapse.
Keep in mind that marginal tax rates are only one part of the equation, and don't tell everything by themselves. For example, the tax simplification plan of 1986 that Reagan pushed and O'Neil got passed the House traded lower marginal rates for the removal of deductions. And if Congress hadn't stacked the system with new deductions after that, would have been overall a pretty good deal.
Well, duhhh!!
Haven't you ever even heard of the United States? 
They get preferential treatment in every respect.
But mostly what I meant was that nearly everything government does benefits the rich. A stable society and a fair court system facilitates the businesses that the rich own. Public schools educate the workers that work at the businesses that the rich own. Roads and utilities allow good access to the businesses that the rich own. The stability of society through the social safety net protects the businesses that the rich own. Law enforcement and the protection of private property protects the businesses that the rich own.
The rich, can be rich because of what government does.
So why should they get a pass when it comes to paying for it?
Well, duhhh!!
Haven't you ever even heard of the United States? They get preferential treatment in every respect. Rich towns have better fire departments. Better police departments. Better hospitals. Better schools. Better parks. Cleaner and better maintained roads and public spaces.
But mostly what I meant was that nearly everything government does benefits the rich. A stable society and a fair court system facilitates the businesses that the rich own. Public schools educate the workers that work at the businesses that the rich own. Roads and utilities allow good access to the businesses that the rich own. The stability of society through the social safety net protects the businesses that the rich own. Law enforcement and the protection of private property protects the businesses that the rich own.
The rich, can be rich because of what government does.
So why should they get a pass when it comes to paying for it?
Integral
Can't you hear it?
^ They do pay for most of it.
taxcontributionsbypercentile.jpg
taxcontributionsbypercentile.jpg
And yet some people keep claiming they need tax breaks....
But someone else always has to pay for those tax breaks. And the people who are asked to pay for the tax breaks for the rich receive no benefit from them.
ps, have you forgotten how to post pictures...
Integral
Can't you hear it?
ps, have you forgotten how to post pictures...
I'm not on my usual computer and lack access to my usual sources. So those are "placeholders" and work just as well anyway.
I'm not on my usual computer and lack access to my usual sources. So those are "placeholders" and work just as well anyway.
Only to some that know you well...
Oerdin
Deity
Now this I can agree with. Our tax code is to complicated simply because politicians love to give away goodies in the form of tax credits and other give aways to their pet special interest groups. We need a big tax code simplification push which gets rid of just about all the tax credits thus leveling the playing field and exposing how rigged the system truly was. While we are at it I'd love to get rid of the market distorting subsidies (agricultural as well as corporate subsidies) as those special interest groups should sink or swim without the tax payer's help.
