How do you feel about a flat tax in your country?

[Leatherneck]

Can you say that about kids born and raised in the innercity, who's parents are in and out of jail, live paycheck to paycheck, never have a permanet job, etc. I, for one, don't think so.

Yes I can say it about inner city kids, we can all go through life blaming our childhood, our hardknocks, etc etc ... I've seen plenty of adults who grew up in welfare families in the inner city that said I'm not living like this and went out and got grants and went to college and got out of there. IT TOOK DRIVE!

Don't make excuses for the lazy snots that think everything should be given to them, if they want out of the inner city they can get out of the inner city with hard word, to say otherwise is a defeatist attitude. Seem to me to many people want to blame the hand life give them instead of looking in the mirror for the real problem. (FYI I started life dirt poor and now I'm not, was it handed to me? NO.)

 

[Winner]

15% flat tax is what the strongest party in Czech rep. promised and they have actually won the elections, unfortunately it turned out they don't have the majority needed to push it through. Anyway, I think it is a very good idea, so I am all for it.

 

[{|}$~\]

1. Poverty is h***. NO ONE deserves it, no matter how lazy they are, no matter what choices they made. Anyone who thinks people "deserve" to be poor either has never been poor or has but no longer remembers it.

2. Most people who are poor use up all their effort and motivation merely surviving and have none left to get ahead. Furthermore, the poor often end up unable to get good education, thus rendering them unable to improve their lives no matter how hard they try. They also can't take as good care of their health, again putting them at a disadvantage. If you are poor, the deck is already stacked aginst you; don't try conning me into thinking it's a question of effort. A rich person can put in LESS effort than a poor person and STILL do better.

Now, as to taxes, raising taxes on a poor person = forcing them to choose between food and heat; raising taxes on rich people = making them choose between a third private jet and a fifth yacht.

For an understanding of what poor people face in this country, read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich.

 

[luiz]

raising taxes on rich people = making them choose between a third private jet and a fifth yacht.

Wow, talk about false hyporboles to make a point.

My family is on the top income tax brackett and yet we have no private jet or yacht. We don't even fly first class!

Raising our taxes (what is done every year) means that we will have no money to, for exemple, pay for a top MBA for me or whatever equivalent for my brother (he studies Medicine), greatly limiting the possibilities that we could have if it was not for the government stealing merciless from us.

I say lower the taxes for the rich, poor and middle-class. Cut government programs, as a matter of fact cut government to a functional minimum.

Of course, as things stand, I'd be more than happy with a 25% flat tax (with an exempt band). But that doesn't mean it is the ideal.

 

[Leatherneck]

1. Poverty is h***. NO ONE deserves it, no matter how lazy they are, no matter what choices they made. Anyone who thinks people "deserve" to be poor either has never been poor or has but no longer remembers it.

2. Most people who are poor use up all their effort and motivation merely surviving and have none left to get ahead. Furthermore, the poor often end up unable to get good education, thus rendering them unable to improve their lives no matter how hard they try. They also can't take as good care of their health, again putting them at a disadvantage. If you are poor, the deck is already stacked aginst you; don't try conning me into thinking it's a question of effort. A rich person can put in LESS effort than a poor person and STILL do better.

Now, as to taxes, raising taxes on a poor person = forcing them to choose between food and heat; raising taxes on rich people = making them choose between a third private jet and a fifth yacht.

For an understanding of what poor people face in this country, read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich.

All poppycock and balderdash. I could explain how lowering the taxes on the rich creates jobs, but you won't listen as you believe people don't have a choice, whereas they do.
Note: the top 1% of wage earners pay 10X the amount of taxes as the bottom 50% combined. The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

 

[tomsnowman123]

2. Most people who are poor use up all their effort and motivation merely surviving and have none left to get ahead. Furthermore, the poor often end up unable to get good education, thus rendering them unable to improve their lives no matter how hard they try. They also can't take as good care of their health, again putting them at a disadvantage. If you are poor, the deck is already stacked aginst you; don't try conning me into thinking it's a question of effort. A rich person can put in LESS effort than a poor person and STILL do better.

And that's a problem. It's a vivious cycle that benefit those who have money and are born into a wealthy family.

 

[pboily]

I don't even know which bracket I fall in. Hell, I don't even know how much money I make each year. I might even be rich, for all I know.

Flat, proportional, alien-devised: it's all the same to me.

 

[Leatherneck]

Let me see if I understand this ....

It's the rich persons fault for being rich.
BUT
It's not the poor persons fault for being poor?

Is that how works not only do the "rich" (top 50%) pay 96.54% of all income taxes, they must also shoulder the guilt of getting up off that ass and doing something with their life? Got it ...

 

[tomsnowman123]

Let me see if I understand this ....

It's the rich persons fault for being rich.
BUT
It's not the poor persons fault for being poor?

Is that how works not only do the "rich" (top 50%) pay 96.54% of all income taxes, they must also shoulder the guilt of getting up off that ass and doing something with their life? Got it ...

Sure it's the rich's fault they get rich. That, inherenty, is not neccesarily a bad thing. It's when the poor are exploited by the rich, and are basically stuck without a chance at having success that it becomes a bad thing. Class division is a big seperator in society, and the gap comtinues to increase. A classless society would undoubtedly be a good thing.

 

[ainwood]

Now, as to taxes, raising taxes on a poor person = forcing them to choose between food and heat;

No - that's an extreme - and zero tax wouldn't help those people either.

In the NZ, the "poverty" survey actually classed people as "severely disadvantaged" because their children didn't have access to playstation.

Yes, there are some for whom it is a case of food or heat, but for the "poor" in this discussion, it would be more appropriate to refer to people in the bottom tax bracket. Lets be a bit more realistic. I have lived on less than $NZ 12 an hour (equivalent to about $US 7) for two years, and during that time, managed to retire about $10,000 of debt.

raising taxes on rich people = making them choose between a third private jet and a fifth yacht.

Well, you go from one extreme to the other.

I am in the top tax bracket. So is my wife (granted the brackets are different here than in the US). Yet we are only comfortable middle-class; we still have to budget, we still have to make decisions to go without things. We drive second-hand cars. We would never dream of buying a private jet, nor a yacht (our primary goal is to pay-off our mortgage).

Hyperbole is not the path to objectivism.

 

[pboily]

Sure, if we there was no classes, things would go swingingly. It's how we're going to get to a class-less society from a class-full society that worries us. (well, it worries me, at least).

 

[tomsnowman123]

Sure, if we there was no classes, things would go swingingly. It's how we're going to get to a class-less society from a class-full society that worries us. (well, it worries me, at least).

Anarchy...

Communism wouldn't be too bad either, as long as it was succesful, and not that fake stuff they have in other parts of the world.

 

[Homie]

tomsnowman, you want anarchy, but communism is a good second. You understand that anarchy and communism are complete opposites?
What you are saying makes no sense.

 

[pboily]

That's what I mean, Tom.

 

[puglover]

Sure, if we there was no classes, things would go swingingly. It's how we're going to get to a class-less society from a class-full society that worries us. (well, it worries me, at least).

I'd like a classless society too. But we can't have one. Not with human greed.

 

[Leatherneck]

Sure it's the rich's fault they get rich. That, inherenty, is not neccesarily a bad thing. It's when the poor are exploited by the rich, and are basically stuck without a chance at having success that it becomes a bad thing. Class division is a big seperator in society, and the gap comtinues to increase. A classless society would undoubtedly be a good thing.

WRONG (IMO) ... if you had a classless society, what would people strive for? Would that make the poor man work? Face it there are people out there are not going to work regardless of what you do, and I for one get a little tired of paying for the loafers. Of course class division is a big seperator in society, it is what gives people drive to make it from one to another. We work to make our lives better, and while I'm sure that some people think that can be achieved through some sort of enlightment and a better warm fuzzy. For the proud capitalist pigs like myself that warm fuzzy comes at the end of the day when I see the bottom line. A classless society would undoubtedly be a bad thing.

 

[tomsnowman123]

tomsnowman, you want anarchy, but communism is a good second. You understand that anarchy and communism are complete opposites?
What you are saying makes no sense.

Please define "opposite."

Communism seeks to create a classless society through common/public ownership, thus allowing everybody to enjoy social freedoms. Please don't think of communism as it is in Cuba, as it was in the U.S.S.R., as it is in North Korea. Ideally, it would not be ruled over by a dictaotor, but through the public. It is much closer to anarchy then capitalism.

And let me rephrase my earlier statement. Communism is better then what we have, but the onle good answer is eco-anarchy.

 

[tomsnowman123]

WRONG (IMO) ... if you had a classless society, what would people strive for? Would that make the poor man work?

Call it a corny answer, but, in truth, society would stop and so would lives if all work stopped. Putting food on the table is usually a good motivator. People would realize that if all work stopped, so would this.

 

[Homie]

Please define "opposite."

Are you kidding me? Look it up.

Communism seeks to create a classless society through common/public ownership, thus allowing everybody to enjoy social freedoms. Please don't think of communism as it is in Cuba, as it was in the U.S.S.R., as it is in North Korea. Ideally, it would not be ruled over by a dictaotor, but through the public. It is much closer to anarchy then capitalism.

And let me rephrase my earlier statement. Communism is better then what we have, but the onle good answer is eco-anarchy.

Eco-anarchy, ok, in other words capitalism . Welcome to the right-wing, or should I say right-way of thinking.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Are you kidding me? Look it up.

I was referring to the fact that I don't believe that they are opposite, and so the word was used incorrectly. It was in quotes.

Don't worry, I'm not that stupid.

Eco-anarchy, ok, in other words capitalism . Welcome to the right-wing, or should I say right-way of thinking.

Eco-anarchy is not capitalism by any means.