• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

Biscuit said:
The reality is that of your 50% the vast majority either don't make money, can't make money, or don't make enough money.
Click to expand...
"Don't make enough" as defined by the highly unfair progressive tax scheme. Flatten the tax and more people pay their fair share.

Unabogie said:
Look at Neally above. Not only is he "glad" that the wealthy will be given a new, unnecessary, disproportionate "equity" in their tax rates, but he also uses an easily discredited trope about how half of all Americans don't pay "income" tax...
Click to expand...
So do provide the evidence contradicting and correcting the congressional committee and IRS figures that show that about half of the people don't pay income tax.
 
Neally said:
"Don't make enough" as defined by the highly unfair progressive tax scheme. Flatten the tax and more people pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your warped view of what "fair" is the fact remains that your 50% statistic is a load of nonsense.
 
Neally said:
"Don't make enough" as defined by the highly unfair progressive tax scheme. Flatten the tax and more people pay their fair share.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what's fair is what's fair for rich people. Never mind that most rich people started life rich. Never mind that rich people in America have advantages that people in Somalia or North Korea will never have. Fair? What a joke.

RandFan said:
"Equitable"? Ask a conservative if being born disadvantaged is fair and you will likely get the answer that "life isn't fair". Point out that happiness tops out around $100,000 of discretionary income per person per year. Point out that it takes lots of money to fund the most expensive military in the world. Point out that dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to societies that invest in infrastructure, education and social programs. Point out that a progressive tax system is actually in the best interest of the wealthy. Point all of that out and the conservative will suddenly stand on principle and decry taxes as inherently "unfair".
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
Yeah, what's fair is what's fair for rich people. Never mind that most rich people started life rich. Never mind that rich people in America have advantages that people in Somalia or North Korea will never have. Fair? What a joke.
Click to expand...
So 50% of the people not paying income tax isn't fair enough for you? What number is "fair" in your world, 60%, 75%, maybe 10% of the people should pay more so that 90% don't pay anything?

Biscuit said:
Regardless of your warped view of what "fair" is the fact remains that your 50% statistic is a load of nonsense.
Click to expand...
So do provide the evidence contradicting and correcting the congressional committee and IRS figures that show that about half of the people don't pay income tax.
 
Neally said:
So 50% of the people not paying income tax isn't fair enough for you?
Click to expand...
When did I say that wasn't fair?

What number is "fair" in your world, 60%, 75%, maybe 10% of the people should pay more so that 90% don't pay anything?
Click to expand...
Wrong question. Let's try this again. Is it fair for one child to be born into poverty and the other child to be born into wealth? How do we make that fair?

Such questions are unhelpful. Instead of focusing on "but mom that's not fair", let's focus on pragmatic reality and what works to improve society. Like I said, improving society is in everyone's best interest. The question that we need to ask is what is the best balance of taxes to ensure that hard work, thrift, risk and investment work as motivating tools and will meet our obligations and the needs of all citizens. Given that we are an evolved social species and that cooperation and reciprocal altruism is good for everyone then those are the right kinds of questions.
 
RandFan said:
When did I say that wasn't fair?

Wrong question. Let's try this again. Is it fair for one child to be born into poverty and the other child to be born into wealth? How do we make that fair?

Such questions are unhelpful. Instead of focusing on "but mom that's not fair", let's focus on pragmatic reality and what works to improve society. Like I said, improving society is in everyone's best interest. The question that we need to ask is what is the best balance of taxes to ensure that hard work, thrift, risk and investment work as motivating tools and will meet our obligations and the needs of all citizens. Given that we are an evolved social species and that cooperation and reciprocal altruism is good for everyone then those are the right kinds of questions.
Click to expand...
I don't find that a given, and have no idea why you or anyone else would either. History to date and human nature as-is don't imo demonstrate it to be factual.
 
RandFan said:
When did I say that wasn't fair?
Click to expand...
You quoted me and went off on a rambling post about fairness so I'm just trying to figure out what specifically in my post that you had a problem with.

Wrong question. Let's try this again. Is it fair for one child to be born into poverty and the other child to be born into wealth? How do we make that fair?
Click to expand...
Wrong question. Some people will be born into better circumstances than others. It would be insane to try to "fix" that.

The question that we need to ask is what is the best balance of taxes to ensure that hard work, thrift, risk and investment work as motivating tools and will meet our obligations and the needs of all citizens.
Click to expand...
And my answer is that more people paying their share is both fair, reasonable, and good for society, therefore the tax rates should be flattened out.

BenBurch said:
Invented numbers are a clear sign there is no "there" there.
Click to expand...
Your posts are sure quick to egg on the left while containing remarkably little actual meaningful content to support your side. Otherwise known as trolling.
 
AlBell said:
Given that we are an evolved social species and that cooperation and reciprocal altruism is good for everyone then those are the right kinds of questions.
Click to expand...
I don't find that a given, and have no idea why you or anyone else would either. History to date and human nature as-is don't imo demonstrate it to be factual.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Sometimes I'm blown away. Uh, yeah. That humans evolved to be a social species is a scientific fact. That we are evolved for reciprocal altruism is a pretty solid theory. It is a robust scientific model with both explanatory and predictive power. See Sociobiology, Selfish Gene, Evolutionary game theory. Also, as I hammer home on nearly a daily basis, dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to cooperation and social services.
 
Neally said:
1You quoted me and went off on a rambling post about fairness so I'm just trying to figure out what specifically in my post that you had a problem with.

2Wrong question. Some people will be born into better circumstances than others. It would be insane to try to "fix" that.

3And my answer is that more people paying their share is both fair, reasonable, and good for society, therefore the tax rates should be flattened out.

4Your posts are sure quick to egg on the left while containing remarkably little actual meaningful content to support your side. Otherwise known as trolling.
Click to expand...

  1. It wasn't rambling. I pointed out the silliness of "fairness".
  2. A.) If you don't give a damn about the inherent unfairness of being born disadvantaged then don't appeal to the unfairness of a progressive tax system. B.) It is not impossible to improve the lives of those born into poverty. Asserting that it is "insane" to even try is simply cynicism and contrary to empirical facts. We have improved the lives and opportunity of the poor through education and social programs. Compare western industrial nations with the 3rd world.
  3. A) I don't buy that you care about fairness. You only appeal to it for your own ideological reasons. B.) It's inherently not fair to benefit unfairly (as you concede) and then not help out your society to greater extent than those who did not benefit as much. C.) Flattening out taxes will only appease your sense of "fairness" as it applies to the rich and will not advance the overall society. So there is no reason anyone should take that seriously. A one sided sense of fairness isn't fair.
  4. I'm not egging on anything. I call BS on "fairness" only for the rich. People who are born into wealth have an unfair benefit. Ignoring that while focusing on some sense of fairness when it comes to increasing the benefits of the rich is not internally consistent.
And again, dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to nations with progressive tax systems. Asking what is "fair" only as it relates to the rich is the wrong question. Ask what works to benefit most people because at the end of the day that is what is most fair?

And one more time, because you ignore it. Keep in place protections for personal property and the motivation to work hard, save and invest. We can do all of that. Let millionaires keep their billions so long as they pay a progressive tax.

One last thing, asking questions ISN'T trolling.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Are you serious? Sometimes I'm blown away. Uh, yeah. That humans evolved to be a social species is a scientific fact. That we are evolved for reciprocal altruism is a pretty solid theory. It is a robust scientific model with both explanatory and predictive power. See Sociobiology, Selfish Gene, Evolutionary game theory. Also, as I hammer home on nearly a daily basis, dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to cooperation and social services.
Click to expand...

In AlBell's world, social darwinism is the only ideal.

The poor suffer and die needlessly, and the unscrupulous and the lucky (plus a very small number of the really skilled) live like kings.
 
BenBurch said:
In AlBell's world, social darwinism is the only ideal.

The poor suffer and die needlessly, and the unscrupulous and the lucky (plus a very small number of the really skilled) live like kings.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as a life long conservative I bought into that. It's nonsense of course. What opened my eyes was that there were plenty of examples that disproved the idea and none that supported it. Which sounds odd since I'm a fan of Ayn Rand. It's true that competition is a good thing. That reward for hard work is a good thing. That will always be true no matter what. In Denmark where they have very strong social safety nets there are rich and powerful people who innovate, take risk and work to increase productivity to improve their lot in life. We an actually walk and chew gum at the same time. :)
 
Neally said:
So do provide the evidence contradicting and correcting the congressional committee and IRS figures that show that about half of the people don't pay income tax.
Click to expand...


I am not saying that 50% of the population doesn't pay federal income tax. I am saying that number isn't the whole story as it includes people who can't for various reasons pay federal income tax. Why don't you find out how many people that qualify by federal law to pay income tax don't?

You can knock the 10% of American's that are retired off that 50%

40% left

Lets say that 8% are unemployed

32% left

People living below the poverty level or in poverty is nearly 10%

22% left

I have taken care of over half of your unsubstantiated 50% claim. Now you do some work and remove every member of the military, college students, the disabled, and families that don't make enough or receive credits and see just how much is left.

Want to know why the wealthiest pay the largest percent of the income tax bill? Because they take the largest percent of the income.

home work 1

home work 2
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Yeah, as a life long conservative I bought into that. It's nonsense of course. What opened my eyes was that there were plenty of examples that disproved the idea and none that supported it. Which sounds odd since I'm a fan of Ayn Rand. It's true that competition is a good thing. That reward for hard work is a good thing. That will always be true no matter what. In Denmark where they have very strong social safety nets there are rich and powerful people who innovate, take risk and work to increase productivity to improve their lot in life. We an actually walk and chew gum at the same time. :)
Click to expand...

Conservatives like to ask if 100% taxation would kill all incentives to work and they have a point. At some point on a continuum, you've taxed too much and people will stop working. But for some reason they don't see the other end of the question. If income inequality were allowed to grow to 100%, meaning the rich control 100% of the world's wealth, property, and opportunity, then who would buy anything? What kind of economy would be left? In a world where all of the money were in the hands of a very few lucky folks, would that even be recognizable as capitalism? Would Ayn Rand, who envisioned a world in which the very smart and able would work because of an inner desire to excel, be able to imagine a story where no one else had a single cent to rub together? What would they do if they had no money or society in which to work? It's great that Howard Roark designed awesome buildings. But if no one but the very rich could employ him and he couldn't even afford paper and pencil, just how would he afford that school of architecture at which he stormed out of in the first place?

This was my epiphany at 19 when I was so into Rand. Yes, she has a point, but the enemy is extremism, not any one system. Capitalism left to its own devices will destroy itself and we're seeing that now.
 
Biscuit said:
I am not saying that 50% of the population doesn't pay federal income tax. I am saying that number isn't the whole story as it includes people who can't for various reasons pay federal income tax. Why don't you find out how many people that qualify by federal law to pay income tax don't?

You can knock the 10% off American's that are retired off that 50%

40% left

Lets say that 8% are unemployed

32% left

People living below the poverty level or in poverty is nearly 10%

22% left

I have taken care of over half of your unsubstantiated 50% claim. Now you do some work and remove every member of the military, college students, the disabled, and families that don't make enough or receive credits and see just how much is left.

Want to know why the wealthiest pay the largest percent of the income tax bill? Because they take the largest percent of the income.

home work 1

home work 2
Click to expand...

Don't you know? All those people, retired, infirm, poor, unemployed, are PARASITES to the Right in this country.
 
I agree with Neally: poor people have it easy.

If you don't believe me, then I can google up some dubious statistics.
 
I had to google Ravenclaw because I don't watch any of that Harry Potter warlock ****. Harry Potter is a socialist because he uses magic to get himself things. The only way I think people should only get stuff is by earning it through hard work, or prayer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom