Thread: I owe income taxes?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The Bush Tax cuts enabled Mitt Romney to pay a smaller tax percentage than the average worker. It enabled GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't agree with those provisions.

General Electric paid no tax at all in America in 2010 and even managed to get a $3.2billion 'rebate' from the government. The utilities giant allocated just 7.4 per cent of its $5.1billion U.S. profits in tax. But through a complex series of measures GE, which is America's largest company, will not even have to hand that over because of the rebate

Do you think equal distribution of grades in schools would be effective?

Nothing I have argued implies this whatsoever. I have already explained that I am anarcho-syndicalist but as long as we live in the society Adam Smith envisioned we should at least adhere to the conditions he laid out as necessary for the survival of this society. When 20% of the population owns 50% of the wealth, asking them to pay 50% in taxes while the bottom 80% pays 34% is not anything like the examples you have given. It's not like giving As to the students that earned Fs, it's not like inviting terrible basketball players into the NBA. It is, as I have laid out, distributing the highest burden on those with the strongest foundation. It is not forced equality, it is compensation to the class of society that supports the successful. Go work in a factory, and see how that compares to paying 16% more in taxes. And stop saying they could get out if they worked hard enough. Not everyone can escape the factories or there would be no one to work in the factories. They must compete, the most apt and most fortunate will ascend to a position where they can build a foundation so they don't have to struggle to make ends meet. But for society to run effectively, all those who were not apt or fortunate enough must still turn the gears. That is why European countries socialize education and healthcare, it has nothing to do with forcing everyone to be equal. It has everything to do with building the strongest ladder possible so those with the ambition and aptitude can more easily ascend to the position of their merit.

Now back onto the issue of property. Stop baselessly aligning property with profit. They are not the same. A company's profit is earned by the entire company, not just the share-holders. You're going to have to explain how the share-holders own the profit and not the laborers before you make insinuations that I support theft. The share-holders are the thieves, by forcing the laborers to choose between wage-slavery and starvation.

My first job was working at a 7-11, a place where real people work to support real families. I didn't have one back then, but I worked with people that did. The pay sucked.

I worked MUCH harder at that 7-11 than I did at my last job at a global engineering firm which gave me six figures in stock and almost as much in 401K. I worked very hard at that 7-11, beyond what I should have ever had to endure, cleaning up drunk people's vomit and having to call the police when someone shot at a customer in the parking lot. I had none of that working for that engineering firm.

As I have seen it, the majority of people who make $100,000 or more annually have to do a lot less and certainly less demeaning work than those who make close to minimum wage. I don't see how someone making $23,000 should have to pay a third of it in taxes while some rich asshole in a nice suit can bitch them out because they had to wait five minutes on fries yet pay less in taxes because of loopholes and rebates.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is what I meant by "firing." Use of that threat has been getting roads fixed for ages. As it is now, I can drive to any city in the country. Can I count on that if all roads become private?

Is this a serious question? You claim that you like privatization, but then you ask a question like this. I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I gave you 2 websites to go to.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nothing I have argued implies this whatsoever. I have already explained that I am anarcho-syndicalist but as long as we live in the society Adam Smith envisioned we should at least adhere to the conditions he laid out as necessary for the survival of this society. When 20% of the population owns 50% of the wealth, asking them to pay 50% in taxes while the bottom 80% pays 34% is not anything like the examples you have given. It's not like giving As to the students that earned Fs, it's not like inviting terrible basketball players into the NBA. It is, as I have laid out, distributing the highest burden on those with the strongest foundation. It is not forced equality, it is compensation to the class of society that supports the successful. Go work in a factory, and see how that compares to paying 16% more in taxes. And stop saying they could get out if they worked hard enough. Not everyone can escape the factories or there would be no one to work in the factories. They must compete, the most apt and most fortunate will ascend to a position where they can build a foundation so they don't have to struggle to make ends meet. But for society to run effectively, all those who were not apt or fortunate enough must still turn the gears. That is why European countries socialize education and healthcare, it has nothing to do with forcing everyone to be equal. It has everything to do with building the strongest ladder possible so those with the ambition and aptitude can more easily ascend to the position of their merit.

Now back onto the issue of property. Stop baselessly aligning property with profit. They are not the same. A company's profit is earned by the entire company, not just the share-holders. You're going to have to explain how the share-holders own the profit and not the laborers before you make insinuations that I support theft. The share-holders are the thieves, by forcing the laborers to choose between wage-slavery and starvation.

We never vowed to follow Adam Smith's philosophy to the entire letter. We use a system based on his overall principle. That is not a commitment to full detail.

I never said everybody has the ability to get middle class or rich if they work hard enough. I said they have access to it, but not everybody has the intelligence or the skill. Did you miss that? As for profits being property, yes they are. If I open a restaurant and hire you to manage it for $10 per hour, you get $10 per hour while I make the profits. Thus, the profits are MINE and $10 for every work hour of yours is YOURS. The fact that you helped me with my business for your own gain does not mean I owe you more than the $10 per hour you agreed to. My profits are mine. I own them. They belong to me. They are my property.

I mentioned grades because you quoted Karl Marx's communism/socialism slogan. Are you a communist/socialist or not? If you are, tell me why equal distribution of grades would not be a good idea.
Now give me a NUMBER for a PERCENTAGE of income you think qualifies as "fair share" for the top 1% to pay. I know you understand what I am asking. Stop playing dodgeball.

Originally Posted by melanieb

My first job was working at a 7-11, a place where real people work to support real families. I didn't have one back then, but I worked with people that did. The pay sucked.
I worked MUCH harder at that 7-11 than I did at my last job at a global engineering firm which gave me six figures in stock and almost as much in 401K. I worked very hard at that 7-11, beyond what I should have ever had to endure, cleaning up drunk people's vomit and having to call the police when someone shot at a customer in the parking lot. I had none of that working for that engineering firm.
As I have seen it, the majority of people who make $100,000 or more annually have to do a lot less and certainly less demeaning work than those who make close to minimum wage. I don't see how someone making $23,000 should have to pay a third of it in taxes while some rich asshole in a nice suit can bitch them out because they had to wait five minutes on fries yet pay less in taxes because of loopholes and rebates.

A lot of people who make six figures are workaholics, but what I keep saying is that they worked hard and were persistent at getting to where they could make that kind of money. Most importantly, it is THEIR money. That often gets lost in conversations about taxing the rich. Also, I don't believe in income tax. I pay it because that is the current system, but I think it is an inefficient, counterproductive, and unfair system. I believe in sales tax.

By the way, did you work at the 7-11 on Burnet Rd. by any chance? A friend of mine worked there about a year ago. I lived in Austin for a little while last year. It's my second favorite city in the country, after New Orleans.

Originally Posted by cmind

Is this a serious question? You claim that you like privatization, but then you ask a question like this. I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I gave you 2 websites to go to.

Holy shit... Are you okay? We are having a discussion. If you don't want to do that, then why on Earth are you here? This is a discussion forum. Not a tell people about web sites and then play dodgeball forum.

I said I believe in privatization of everything except police, military, and maybe roads. I wanted to check out all three concepts some more, and I still see some significant possiblity that private roads can work. I said that. Remember? I didn't say I am all for privatization of roads already. I was giving you a chance to go into it a good bit, but you are obviously chickening out. Maybe you don't believe all that much in what you are saying. Whatever the case, learn not act like a dick. Thanks.

Omnis, your prediction was wrong. The wedding is off.

Originally Posted by cmind

But what legal recourse do you have if the government fucks up with the roads? None....if humans are so damned evil, why do you trust them to rule you?

That's what (little-d) democracy is for.

Originally Posted by cmind

I mean, what's the difference between the President and the King, really? They both have power that I did not give them.

Oh, nothing. I mean, there's free elections and whatnot, instead of heredity, but that's not really much of a difference, now is it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you a communist/socialist or not?

Two COMPLETELY different things.

I just believe people should be able to make a living and pay for basic necessities no matter what job they have. Poorer people shouldn't have to pay a higher percent of their income to support a system that allows those who are wealthier (no matter how they made their money) to not care that poor people are poor and simply put it off to poor people not working as hard at being successful.

Not everyone has access to the same resources, even if we all do live in the same country, or even in the same city. Not everyone has the same opportunities...and it sucks hard for a lot of people.

I'm not particularly religious and I have never read The Bible all the way through, but I do believe in the philosophy that those with means should help their fellow man, to help raise him up out of suffering so that he may also live a decent life. I think that all people should help their neighbors, regardless of religion, wealth, nationality, gender, or color.

Basically, the Bill and Ted Philosophy



Naw, I didn't work at that one. Bought gas there once. I worked at the one on south Lamar, near Manchaca (locally pronounced Man-Shack), which at the time was the busiest store in Austin. I worked overnight shift, when all the enat people came in.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Two COMPLETELY different things.

I knew somebody would say that. I just thought Omnis would be the first. Socialism and communism are different only in semantics and the possibility of degree. Communism is pure socialism in reality, though not in initial philosophy. Communism and pure socialism both come down to the government owning everything and giving the people what they decide to give them. Communism is supposed to be everybody owning everything together, but it is interesting how people cannot just walk into people's houses and take things. People do have stuff for their possession, but it is what the government allows them to have. The government also has the power to take it from them. Ultimately, the government owns everything and decides what people can use. There is another term for that-- socialism.

Why did the Communist Party call its empire the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Originally Posted by melanieb

I just believe people should be able to make a living and pay for basic necessities no matter what job they have. Poorer people shouldn't have to pay a higher percent of their income to support a system that allows those who are wealthier (no matter how they made their money) to not care that poor people are poor and simply put it off to poor people not working as hard at being successful.

Not everyone has access to the same resources, even if we all do live in the same country, or even in the same city. Not everyone has the same opportunities...and it sucks hard for a lot of people.

I'm not particularly religious and I have never read The Bible all the way through, but I do believe in the philosophy that those with means should help their fellow man, to help raise him up out of suffering so that he may also live a decent life. I think that all people should help their neighbors, regardless of religion, wealth, nationality, gender, or color.

Basically, the Bill and Ted Philosophy

I am all for charity, but I think it should be voluntary. I don't believe in forced charity. I also think people should be excellent to each other, until given a good reason to get mean.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Naw, I didn't work at that one. Bought gas there once. I worked at the one on south Lamar, near Manchaca (locally pronounced Man-Shack), which at the time was the busiest store in Austin. I worked overnight shift, when all the enat people came in.

Oh, the South side. I love that area, but I didn't go there much. I lived right off North Lamar, by Central Market.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We never vowed to follow Adam Smith's philosophy to the entire letter. We use a system based on his overall principle. That is not a commitment to full detail.

Vowing has nothing to do with it, it's about heeding someone's warnings. When reading directions on how to pitch a tent, you got to follow all of them or you won't have a tent.

I never said everybody has the ability to get middle class or rich if they work hard enough. I said they have access to it, but not everybody has the intelligence or the skill. Did you miss that?

And I agreed with you, but you're acting like just because everyone has access to it, those who cannot compete as well as others deserve nothing at all. Can you at least admit there would be no rich people without hard working people earning their profit for them?

As for profits being property, yes they are. If I open a restaurant and hire you to manage it for $10 per hour, you get $10 per hour while I make the profits. Thus, the profits are MINE and $10 for every work hour of yours is YOURS.

Also known as wage-slavery.

The fact that you helped me with my business for your own gain does not mean I owe you more than the $10 per hour you agreed to. My profits are mine. I own them. They belong to me. They are my property.

This is only the way we have society set up legally but it is not just and you have yet to argue what is just about it.

I mentioned grades because you quoted Karl Marx's communism/socialism slogan. Are you a communist/socialist or not? If you are, tell me why equal distribution of grades would not be a good idea.

Not only are you trying to fit me into a label I don't belong in, you also don't seem to understand much about that label, either. Explain to me where in the communist manifesto it says that people's grades should be distributed evenly. Then explain how using a quote by a person limits me to that person's philosophy. If I quote Jesus would I have to grow a beard, too?

Now give me a NUMBER for a PERCENTAGE of income you think qualifies as "fair share" for the top 1% to pay. I know you understand what I am asking. Stop playing dodgeball.

This isn't dodgeball. I'm arguing general philosophy, not specifics. I don't know the specific income of every individual in the US, I only know that it's disproportionate and taxes should be on a scale relative to the disproportionate centralization of wealth.

According to wikipedia, if someone earns 400,000 a year they'd pay 35% in taxes, meaning they would still earn 10 times more than someone required to pay 15% in taxes. Explain how that is similar to giving everyone in class the same grade.

Holy shit... Are you okay? We are having a discussion. If you don't want to do that, then why on Earth are you here? This is a discussion forum. Not a tell people about web sites and then play dodgeball forum.
I said I believe in privatization of everything except police, military, and maybe roads. I wanted to check out all three concepts some more, and I still see some significant possiblity that private roads can work. I said that. Remember? I didn't say I am all for privatization of roads already. I was giving you a chance to go into it a good bit, but you are obviously chickening out. Maybe you don't believe all that much in what you are saying. Whatever the case, learn not act like a dick. Thanks.

Omnis, your prediction was wrong. The wedding is off.

Married couples fight all the time. I'm sure you'll work it out

I think there is a massive lack of comprehension going on with people that say rich people have a right to what they've earned.
You forget that we are all part of a society (or we're supposed to be).
It should be an obvious fact that not everyone can get rich. Right?
The whole point of a society is to raise the living standards of everyone. I think most people can agree with that definition as well.
Therefore the people who can earn a lot of money should be happy to share it around and help others out.
If they're not happy to do that, then they have a serious problem, probably psychopathy. (It's been proven that a lot of "successful" (rich businessmen) are literal psychopaths)
I see no problem with taking that money from them through taxes and using it to help others.

Originally Posted by melanieb

I would enjoy life and the people I'm surrounded by more if I could afford life for my family. I have to pay for my own family health insurance at $21,888 per year, and that is a lot of money.

My jaw literally dropped. $22,000 per year???????? Shit.... no wonder the insurance companies are fighting so hard against public health care in America.
Fuck....

Originally Posted by melanieb

Living in the real world sucks sometimes.

It is not the real world. It is a part of it, but it's fabricated. The entirety of it rests on words written on pieces of paper.
It is by all accounts, fake; an illusion.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am all for charity, but I think it should be voluntary. I don't believe in forced charity. I also think people should be excellent to each other, until given a good reason to get mean.

I don't believe in "forced charity" but good will should come from all sides simply because we are all in this together, and if I make it better for my neighbor then I will likely benefit also. And charity doesn't have to hurt the pocketbook, nor does it have to be monetary. It can come in many forms.

It probably shouldn't allow anyone a tax break either. Admittedly the standard deduction is something like $11,000 so it takes quite a bit of charity to be able to even reach into the deduction zone, but it should be given for the sake of helping others, not because it means paying lower taxes, which still hurts the people designed to benefit from charity. Ugh.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, the South side. I love that area, but I didn't go there much. I lived right off North Lamar, by Central Market.

That's a nifty area. I live closer to Zilker Park. I can walk to ACL. It's nice.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Vowing has nothing to do with it, it's about heeding someone's warnings. When reading directions on how to pitch a tent, you got to follow all of them or you won't have a tent.

You can see good logic in some parts of a philosophy and not others parts. It is possible. If you are reading instructions on how to pitch a tent, you might see, "Put peg in the ground," and think it makes sense. Then you will see, "Put poles in holes," and think it makes sense. If you see, "Now dance for the Great Pumpkin so it doesn't rain tonight," you might think to yourself, "Hmmm, I don't think I agree with that part." I agree with the Libertarian Party on most issues, but not all issues. Do you assume I am lying?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And I agreed with you, but you're acting like just because everyone has access to it, those who cannot compete as well as others deserve nothing at all. Can you at least admit there would be no rich people without hard working people earning their profit for them?

No, I think they deserve what they earn based on the contracts they agreed to. If they are really struggling, it would be nice of a charity to step in and help them. However, I do not believe in forcing the rich to give away their own property against their will. And yes, rich people do need people working for them to get rich and maintain wealth, in most cases.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Also known as wage-slavery.

Slavery is involuntary servitude. Having a job for $10 an hour when you agreed to it is not slavery on any level.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This is only the way we have society set up legally but it is not just and you have yet to argue what is just about it.

Why is it not just? We made an agreement. It is consentual. What should I pay you per hour to manage my restaurant? Give me a number. (Oh God, here we go again.)

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Not only are you trying to fit me into a label I don't belong in, you also don't seem to understand much about that label, either. Explain to me where in the communist manifesto it says that people's grades should be distributed evenly. Then explain how using a quote by a person limits me to that person's philosophy. If I quote Jesus would I have to grow a beard, too?

It is the quote that sums up the philosophy, not merely some random quote by the guy who wrote the Communist Manifesto. You stated the communist slogan. That is why I asked if you are a communist. The grades thing is an analogy, not something Marx necessarily ever talked about. Still, what would be the problem with equal distribution of grades? Please answer the question. I will illustrate my analogy further after you answer the question. I doubt you will.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This isn't dodgeball. I'm arguing general philosophy, not specifics. I don't know the specific income of every individual in the US, I only know that it's disproportionate and taxes should be on a scale relative to the disproportionate centralization of wealth. (Inb4 you repeat that tired strawman about giving As to every kid in class)

YOU said the top 1% should pay their "fair share." I'm asking you what the fuck that is. You used the term! Understand? They already pay about 50%. You obviously don't think that's enough. So...... What is????????????? Would 60% satisfy you, or would it take at least 70%? Maybe 80%? Would 99% still be too little? Talk to me.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Married couples fight all the time. I'm sure you'll work it out

I already met a dancer. Her stage name is Destiny.

Yeah, $22,000 for health insurance, and that still doesn't cover everything. When I worked for a big company, I paid maybe $6,000 a year for much better coverage, and inexpensive copays.

Successful insurance companies, started by people who felt successful with their businesses, work hard every day to make sure that they keep profits up and services down. As a matter of policy, many insurance companies deny 90% of all claims on the first go-round without even looking at the circumstances, because they know most people won't fight the decision. That's success in America, and it hurts us all.

If poorer people had to pay less in taxes they could spend more of their income on goods and services, which would allow more people to be hired for manufacturing jobs, increasing the GDP, which would also bolster profits for those rich companies and individuals, which would then be able to pay more taxes to contribute to the good of all (which is what taxes are supposed to be for), alowing for a healthier society, better educated kids, and nicer roads that don't require tolls, which poop people can't afford anyway.

Originally Posted by tommo

I think there is a massive lack of comprehension going on with people that say rich people have a right to what they've earned.
You forget that we are all part of a society (or we're supposed to be).
It should be an obvious fact that not everyone can get rich. Right?
The whole point of a society is to raise the living standards of everyone. I think most people can agree with that definition as well.
Therefore the people who can earn a lot of money should be happy to share it around and help others out.
If they're not happy to do that, then they have a serious problem, probably psychopathy. (It's been proven that a lot of "successful" (rich businessmen) are literal psychopaths)
I see no problem with taking that money from them through taxes and using it to help others.

Comprehension problem? Please explain that one, Mr. Caring and Compassionate (obviously). The point of a society is to raise the living standards of everyone? Says who? You? The point of a society is that everyone is there so they can benefit from the others, but that does not mean by living in a society you have vowed to help raise the living standards of others.

What do you think of forced distribution of grade points? Not everyone can make A's. The point of a classroom is for everyone to pass the class. If you don't give up your grade points for the less fortunate, you're a psychopath!

Hey man, I'm kind of hurting for money right now. Mail me the money you owe me. Okay, dammit? Give me what I am entitled to. Hurry it up.

Originally Posted by melanieb

That's a nifty area. I live closer to Zilker Park. I can walk to ACL. It's nice.

I love Zilker Park. I went there some. Did you know that the Moon Tower scene in Dazed and Confused was filmed there?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You can see good logic in some parts of a philosophy and not others parts. It is possible. If you are reading instructions on how to pitch a tent, you might see, "Put peg in the ground," and think it makes sense. Then you will see, "Put poles in holes," and think it makes sense. If you see, "Now dance for the Great Pumpkin so it doesn't rain tonight," you might think to yourself, "Hmmm, I don't think I agree with that part." I agree with the Libertarian Party on most issues, but not all issues. Do you assume I am lying?

Not lying just being stupid. These are not non-sequiter directions, if you do not follow them, the system doesn't work. You cannot pick and choose what parts you want when building a car engine. You need to be consistent with what is required to make the engine run.

Slavery is involuntary servitude. Having a job for $10 an hour when you agreed to it is not slavery on any level.

A slave can always commit suicide. Someone can always choose to starve or be a bum and let their children starve rather than have a job. See? Choices! Nothing about slavery is involuntary. People are just put in a position where they don't have opportunity.

Why is it not just? We made an agreement. It is consentual. What should I pay you per hour to manage my restaurant? Give me a number. (Oh God, here we go again.)

Those who work for the restaurant should jointly own the restaurant. No property, no wages. That is one of the principles of anarcho-syndicalism.

It is the quote that sums up the philosophy, not merely some random quote by the guy who wrote the Communist Manifesto. You stated the communist slogan. That is why I asked if you are a communist. The grades thing is an analogy, not something Marx necessarily ever talked about.

The communist manifesto was limited, we have since evolved our philosophy. Just because I agree with some basic parts of it does not mean I agree with all of it. The system lined out doesn't work, neither does Leninism nor Trotskyism nor Stalinism nor Maoism nor whatever bastardization of Adam Smith's philosophy the United States runs.

Still, what would be the problem with equal distribution of grades? Please answer the question. I will illustrate my analogy further after you answer the question. I doubt you will.

Pretending grades were tied to some real system of intelligence, children would feel no obligation to try hard enough to earn better grades if they were guaranteed to earn good grades anyway. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. A fair tax system would still land a 500,000/yr income at 10-15 times the income of the average person. That's not exactly equal distribution of wealth. Nor is equal distribution of wealth akin to Marxism so you're wrong about pretty much everything you've said.

YOU said the top 1% should pay their "fair share." I'm asking you what the fuck that is. You used the term! Understand? They already pay about 50%. You obviously don't think that's enough. So...... What is????????????? Would 60% satisfy you, or would it take at least 70%? Maybe 80%? Would 99% still be too little? Talk to me.

It depends on a lot of factors. Like I said I'm not an economist, but it seems fair that someone making 20 times the income of the average family wouldn't be burdened too deeply if they could only make 10 times the income of the average family. The issue is not the tax system as it is, it's the one you're proposing and loopholes enabling the 1% to bypass it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I think they deserve what they earn based on the contracts they agreed to. If they are really struggling, it would be nice of a charity to step in and help them. However, I do not believe in forcing the rich to give away their own property against their will. And yes, rich people do need people working for them to get rich and maintain wealth, in most cases.

Charities can only do so much. When a family needs real aid and can only get between $250 and $2000 in money, like people around here who lost their homes in fires...it only goes so far.

Maintaining wealth is nice, but it shouldn't come at the cost of a family's survival, a family with people who work for the individual with the wealth. And that family shouldn't pay more in taxes, percentagewise, than that wealthy person.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Slavery is involuntary servitude. Having a job for $10 an hour when you agreed to it is not slavery on any level.

If a person is born into poor conditions and then has to work for poor wages to feed themselves or their family but is unable to pay for their own health care when they become too sick to work, and no charity is available from those with wealth around them, they are forced to find ways to work even through the worst of ailments...similar to slaves. Slavery may be involuntary but so are many of the conditions that millions of people in this wealthy country suffer daily, yet wealthy people pay those in need little mind.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why is it not just? We made an agreement. It is consentual. What should I pay you per hour to manage my restaurant? Give me a number. (Oh God, here we go again.)

$10 per hour with no overtime comes to $20,800 gross annually. I pay more than that in health insurance. Somehow I doubt it's a living wage for anyone. I made that much at my first job but I lived at home with my parents and used my money for fun, concerts, and helping to offset expenses in the house, but costs have gone up significantly since then. It's simply not enough, without help to pay for basic life requirements.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

YOU said the top 1% should pay their "fair share." I'm asking you what the fuck that is. You used the term! Understand? They already pay about 50%. You obviously don't think that's enough. So...... What is????????????? Would 60% satisfy you, or would it take at least 70%? Maybe 80%? Would 99% still be too little? Talk to me.

I live in a fairly affluent area, for the most part, and those who are in the top 1% don't pay anywhere near 50%. I'm not sure where you got that figure but I don't believe it actually reflects even 5% of the top 1%. As you said, they wouldn't maintain wealth if they gave away all their money.

It's in our nature to be greedy, because we all know that if we don't hold on to what we have, when the day comes that we actually need our accumulated wealth it wouldn't be there if we were more charitable. Too many people take, without contributing to society as a whole, or even in part. Taxes reflect that.

Visit a local charity or a cancer center, and ask the people there how well taxes and costs are working out for them. I doubt you'll find many who say, "I maintained my wealth and I'm now living the good life. Thanks, America."

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Not lying just being stupid. These are not non-sequiter directions, if you do not follow them, the system doesn't work. You cannot pick and choose what parts you want when building a car engine. You need to be consistent with what is required to make the engine run.

Ha ha, I can't decide for myfelf what parts are logical and what parts are not? Really? You can get ideas from someone else and form your own opinion about which ideas are logical and which are not. If a car engine building manual is written by a tree worshipper, and one of the steps is, "Now pray to an oak tree for five minutes," you are going to do that? Honestly? That's stupid.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

A slave can always commit suicide. Someone can always choose to starve or be a bum and let their children starve rather than have a job. See? Choices! Nothing about slavery is involuntary. People are just put in a position where they don't have opportunity.

What a slave cannot do is resign when he decides to. That is the definition. What is your definition of slavery? A job?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Those who work for the restaurant should jointly own the restaurant. No property, no wages. That is one of the principles of anarcho-syndicalism.

That is up to the person who owns the restaurant, who often does not make much profit. There would be fewer restaurants, and the ones that exist would have a much higher likelihood of going out of business. People start businesses because they are greedy. When you take away the fruits of greed, business dies. That is why the Soviet Union died.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The communist manifesto was limited, we have since evolved our philosophy. Just because I agree with some basic parts of it does not mean I agree with all of it. The system lined out doesn't work, neither does Leninism nor Trotskyism nor Stalinism nor Maoism nor whatever bastardization of Adam Smith's philosophy the United States runs.

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world. Even our poor people are rich by world standards. Now, why might that be? By the way, notice the part of your quote I boldfaced.

And who is "we?"

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Pretending grades were tied to some real system of intelligence, children would feel no obligation to try hard enough to earn better grades if they were guaranteed to earn good grades anyway. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. A fair tax system would still land a 500,000/yr income at 10-15 times the income of the average person. That's not exactly equal distribution of wealth. Nor is equal distribution of wealth akin to Marxism so you're wrong about pretty much everything you've said.

Equal distribution of wealth is not what Marxism is about? Uh, yes it is. You are against the fair tax system, so I don't know why you acted like it's your own philosophy. You are a Marxist, to whatever extent. I still don't know because you won't tell me what a "fair share" is.

Definition of MARXISM

: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

Marxism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Notice how it is about socialism and Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It depends on a lot of factors. Like I said I'm not an economist, but it seems fair that someone making 20 times the income of the average family wouldn't be burdened too deeply if they could only make 10 times the income of the average family. The issue is not the tax system as it is, it's the one you're proposing and loopholes enabling the 1% to bypass it.

Okay, so maybe the current 50% is about right? What loopholes have I supported?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Comprehension problem? Please explain that one, Mr. Caring and Compassionate

I like how you say that like it's a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The point of a society is to raise the living standards of everyone? Says who? You? The point of a society is that everyone is there so they can benefit from the others, but that does not mean by living in a society you have vowed to help raise the living standards of others.

What is a society for then?
So some people can live starving on the streets while others live in gold plated mansions?
I don't think anyone would sign up for that....
Let's look at what you said again -

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The point of a society is to raise the living standards of everyone? Says who? You? The point of a society is that everyone is there so they can benefit from the others, but that does not mean by living in a society you have vowed to help raise the living standards of others.

EVERYONE benefit from others. Not just some of them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What do you think of forced distribution of grade points? Not everyone can make A's. The point of a classroom is for everyone to pass the class. If you don't give up your grade points for the less fortunate, you're a psychopath!

Oh, you're using the same argument that Omnis just shot down?
This is completely different. And everyone would get As if they were taught well.
Some people don't want As however, and that's ok too, they can get a job that doesn't require good grades.
Furthermore, everyone has the opportunity to get As. Not everyone has the opportunity to get millions of dollars. It's a simple fact.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Charities can only do so much. When a family needs real aid and can only get between $250 and $2000 in money, like people around here who lost their homes in fires...it only goes so far.

Maintaining wealth is nice, but it shouldn't come at the cost of a family's survival, a family with people who work for the individual with the wealth. And that family shouldn't pay more in taxes, percentagewise, than that wealthy person.

People would give a great deal more to charity if taxes were a great deal lower. Also, poor people should not have kids they cannot afford to take care of. We as a society need to preach that big time. I don't think the poor should pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich. I believe in the same sales tax percent for everybody.

Originally Posted by melanieb

If a person is born into poor conditions and then has to work for poor wages to feed themselves or their family but is unable to pay for their own health care when they become too sick to work, and no charity is available from those with wealth around them, they are forced to find ways to work even through the worst of ailments...similar to slaves. Slavery may be involuntary but so are many of the conditions that millions of people in this wealthy country suffer daily, yet wealthy people pay those in need little mind.

I support disability income.

Originally Posted by melanieb

$10 per hour with no overtime comes to $20,800 gross annually. I pay more than that in health insurance. Somehow I doubt it's a living wage for anyone. I made that much at my first job but I lived at home with my parents and used my money for fun, concerts, and helping to offset expenses in the house, but costs have gone up significantly since then. It's simply not enough, without help to pay for basic life requirements.

The manager should be able to get health insurance from the restaurant. You pay more than $20,800 a year in health insurance? Wow, what on Earth? That is outrageous. My company pays for mine, but I used to pay $125 a month.

Originally Posted by melanieb

I live in a fairly affluent area, for the most part, and those who are in the top 1% don't pay anywhere near 50%. I'm not sure where you got that figure but I don't believe it actually reflects even 5% of the top 1%. As you said, they wouldn't maintain wealth if they gave away all their money.

It's in our nature to be greedy, because we all know that if we don't hold on to what we have, when the day comes that we actually need our accumulated wealth it wouldn't be there if we were more charitable. Too many people take, without contributing to society as a whole, or even in part. Taxes reflect that.

Visit a local charity or a cancer center, and ask the people there how well taxes and costs are working out for them. I doubt you'll find many who say, "I maintained my wealth and I'm now living the good life. Thanks, America."

Like I said, the tax burden really hurts charity. I got the 50% from the fact that it is what my father and other millionaire's I know pay.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ha ha, I can't decide for myfelf what parts are logical and what parts are not? Really? You can get ideas from someone else and form your own opinion about which ideas are logical and which are not. If a car engine building manual is written by a tree worshipper, and one of the steps is, "Now pray to an oak tree for five minutes," you are going to do that? Honestly? That's stupid.

The point is Adam Smith warned if Capitalists did not uphold their responsibility to their society and to those that supplied their profit, then his system would not work. Now that we've seen Capitalists abdicate all their responsibilities to society in pursuit of self-interests, we are also seeing the system fall apart, just as he predicted.

What a slave cannot do is resign when he decides to. That is the definition. What is your definition of slavery? A job?

My definition of slavery is when someone must choose between getting someone else rich and dying, whether they die from punishment in a real slavery system, or simply starvation as in the Capitalist system.

That is up to the person who owns the restaurant, who often does not make much profit. There would be fewer restaurants, and the ones that exist would have a much higher likelihood of going out of business. People start businesses because they are greedy. When you take away the fruits of greed, business dies. That is why the Soviet Union died.

But if all the workers are also the owners, they would have even more incentive to make the company successful than if they were simply contract workers getting paid by the hour. And the system would be even more successful. In fact, these types of companies crop up all the time, they simply don't last because the basic principles of our system don't marry ownership of the product with the producers.

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world. Even our poor people are rich by world standards. Now, why might that be? By the way, notice the part of your quote I boldfaced.

The difference between communism and anarcho-syndicalism is the centralized power. What has destroyed State Socialist Societies has been addressed in Anarcho-Syndicalism. Meanwhile, what destroys Capitalist Societies is tearing our nation to pieces.

Also, we're about to see China surpass the Unites States, does that mean China's system is superior?

And who is "we?"

We are Legion.

Equal distribution of wealth is not what Marxism is about? Uh, yes it is. You are against the fair tax system, so I don't know why you acted like it's your own philosophy. You are a Marxist, to whatever extent. I still don't know because you won't tell me what a "fair share" is.

Definition of MARXISM

: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

Marxism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You're missing the part where it mentions equal distribution of wealth. Oh right, it doesn't. And you're also still pretending I haven't told you what a fair share is because I haven't give a specific number. What income bracket would you like a specific number for, exactly?

Okay, so maybe the current 50% is about right? What loopholes have I supported?

I am arguing that both your tax proposals as well as the loopholes of the Bush Tax Cuts are wrong. Unlike you, I don't lob things together just so I can argue with strawmen.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Comprehension problem? Please explain that one, Mr. Caring and Compassionate (obviously). The point of a society is to raise the living standards of everyone? Says who? You? The point of a society is that everyone is there so they can benefit from the others, but that does not mean by living in a society you have vowed to help raise the living standards of others.

As Omnis said, what is society for then? The definition from Merriam is:

2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially: an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another
b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <literary society>

It would seem members of society should be able to expect others to have common goals, and be able to count on the other members to contribute proportionally to the general welfare of that community or society as a whole, whether they have taken a specific vow or not.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What do you think of forced distribution of grade points? Not everyone can make A's. The point of a classroom is for everyone to pass the class. If you don't give up your grade points for the less fortunate, you're a psychopath!

That's just silly.
It is every person's responsibility, as part of a society, to make their best effort, to earn grades. However, grades are simply a rating system to determine how well we have learned a subject in school. They are not clear opportunities for wealth, for raising oneself above poverty, or a factor that will guarantee being in the top 1%. Nor will they directly affect my taxes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I love Zilker Park. I went there some. Did you know that the Moon Tower scene in Dazed and Confused was filmed there?

The Moon Tower scene was not filmed there. It was filmed:
The Moontower park at Lake Walter E. Long and at
West Enfield Park
2000 Enfield Rd.
Austin, TX
(the park is gone now, and it has been replaced by a playground, swimming pool, and baseball field.)

There are a lot of scenes in that movie that are easy to spot around town, as well as many other movies made here.

Originally Posted by tommo

I like how you say that like it's a bad thing.

No, I'm saying it like I don't really believe it. I know how people who really are compassionate act... and how they don't act.

Originally Posted by tommo

What is a society for then?
So some people can live starving on the streets while others live in gold plated mansions?
I don't think anyone would sign up for that....
Let's look at what you said again -

Who is starving on the streets in the United States? Our poor people tend to be fat, have McDonald's bags everywhere, own cell phones, listen to stereos, and watch DVD's on their televisions. We have a damn good economy compared to the majority of the world. That is because of our tax system, which could still be greatly improved.

Originally Posted by tommo

EVERYONE benefit from others. Not just some of them.

Yes, so they can make it happen for themselves, not so others will be forced into it.

Originally Posted by tommo

I
Oh, you're using the same argument that Omnis just shot down?
This is completely different. And everyone would get As if they were taught well.
Some people don't want As however, and that's ok too, they can get a job that doesn't require good grades.
Furthermore, everyone has the opportunity to get As. Not everyone has the opportunity to get millions of dollars. It's a simple fact.

No, some people aren't smart enough to make A's, and many students do not try hard enough to make A's. It does take effort on the student's part. Getting rich generally requires good grades in school. So, what would be the problem with equal distribution of grades?

And where the Hell is that money you owe me? Get on it!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The point is Adam Smith warned if Capitalists did not uphold their responsibility to their society and to those that supplied their profit, then his system would not work. Now that we've seen Capitalists abdicate all their responsibilities to society in pursuit of self-interests, we are also seeing the system fall apart, just as he predicted.

The system is falling apart because we are using a half ass version of it. It is still the best in the world.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

My definition of slavery is when someone must choose between getting someone else rich and dying, whether they die from punishment in a real slavery system, or simply starvation as in the Capitalist system.

You mean they have to choose between working and starving. The fact that they are in many cases getting somebody else rich because otherwise the business would not exist is irrelevant to the nature of the work. Do you have a better alternative to working? Besides, charities in our country don't let anybody starve. Starvation is not an American problem. It factually is not.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But if all the workers are also the owners, they would have even more incentive to make the company successful than if they were simply contract workers getting paid by the hour. And the system would be even more successful. In fact, these types of companies crop up all the time, they simply don't last because the basic principles of our system don't marry ownership of the product with the producers.

That may be true, but many business owners will not keep their businesses going if everybody shares the profits.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The difference between communism and anarcho-syndicalism is the difference between a V6 and a V8. The difference between Adam Smith's Capitalism and US Capitalism is more like a V6 with a radiator and one without.

What is anarcho about your philosophy? If the government doesn't force companies to go your way, what does?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Also, we're about to see China surpass the Unites States so your assumptions about the US having the best system are also wrong.

China has gotten much more capitalistic, and that is why they are getting more and more successful. I am all for it. Having more than a billion people helps their wealth level too.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

We are Legion.

The anarcho syndicalists? That sounds like the name of a high school quiz bowl team.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're missing the part where it mentions equal distribution of wealth. Oh right, it doesn't. And you're also still pretending I haven't told you what a fair share is because I haven't give a specific number. What income bracket would you like a specific number for, exactly?

Did you not see "a theory and practice of socialism" in the definition? Look again. I keep asking you about what would be a "fair share" for the top 1%. You said they are not paying their "fair share," though they are paying about 50% of what they earn. I am asking you a very simple question. What the fuck would be fair? If you don't know, then how do you know they aren't paying it already?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I am arguing that both your tax proposals as well as the loopholes of the Bush Tax Cuts are wrong. Unlike you, I don't lob things together just so I can argue with strawmen.

Now you're really coming across as crazy. What are you talking about? Screw the loopholes in the Bush tax cuts. I already said I don't support them. What strawmen? What would be a "fair share"? I feel like I am arguing with a robot that posts random words at this point.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But if all the workers are also the owners, they would have even more incentive to make the company successful than if they were simply contract workers getting paid by the hour. And the system would be even more successful. In fact, these types of companies crop up all the time, they simply don't last because the basic principles of our system don't marry ownership of the product with the producers.

Private companies, where the workers "own" the company exist all the time. They simply don't have public stock. I worked for one of these companies and did quite well. My pay wasn't great, but the benefits were amazing, and it did help keep me motivated. That company made plenty of people millionaires through retirement funds and stock, and it's the reason why I still have my stock in that company.

When companies go public you often see a board of company officers who control the majority of stock basing their decisions on how to maintain wealth, rather than what will make the company stronger in the long run, or what will motivate the workers to keep the company successful, allowing all to enjoy the wealth. It's the top 1% making decisions for their benefit, while the remainder struggle along until things fall apart.

And these people will do so while paying high tax rates.

Originally Posted by melanieb

As Omnis said, what is society for then? The definition from Merriam is:

2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially: an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another
b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <literary society>

It would seem members of society should be able to expect others to have common goals, and be able to count on the other members to contribute proportionally to the general welfare of that community or society as a whole, whether they have taken a specific vow or not.

I think we established that we agree on that.

Originally Posted by melanieb

That's just silly.
It is every person's responsibility, as part of a society, to make their best effort, to earn grades. However, grades are simply a rating system to determine how well we have learned a subject in school. They are not clear opportunities for wealth, for raising oneself above poverty, or a factor that will guarantee being in the top 1%. Nor will they directly affect my taxes.

It is everybody's responsibility to try to earn their own money too. Grades do affect futures. Talk to a college admissions counselor at a high school about what grades have to do with future money. Take a blanket with you because the answer will be very long. College grades majorly affect graduate school opportunities.

Originally Posted by melanieb

The Moon Tower scene was not filmed there. It was filmed:
The Moontower park at Lake Walter E. Long and at
West Enfield Park
2000 Enfield Rd.
Austin, TX
(the park is gone now, and it has been replaced by a playground, swimming pool, and baseball field.)

There are a lot of scenes in that movie that are easy to spot around town, as well as many other movies made here.

Oh, then my friend misinformed me. It looked like the Moon Tower. I know I saw the high school. It is a rough ghetto school, interestingly.