Specific problems with specific welfare programs and how to fix them
- Thread starter WFFaithful
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
What's the alternative to this though?
Paying 50%, of course.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
And there it is.
Don't be fooled, jhmd's position on this issue is motivated by one and only one thing - his own financial gain. He has wrapped his argument in the facade of caring or belief in the ability of the poor when in fact he just wants lower taxes and more profits in his investment portfolio.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I don't have a problem with people representing their own position and voting accordingly, but at the same time what defense is there for people with more money contributing a higher total of the taxes other than they're just looking out for themselves?
I also don't have any issue with every dollar over 500k or 1 mil (do some research on it before implementation of course) being taxed at a rate between 40-50%. Anything over something like 10 million can be taxed even higher. At some point you reach the area where regardless of the amount of work you're doing, it's not worth the amount you're making and I'm fine with taxes coming in heavily then.
If I made 50 million dollars a year, I would have no problem with it being heavily taxed since it would mean that people who actually need it are getting it.
Does not follow, but thanks for playing.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
I have no problem with it either, but get that weak shit about caring and believing in the poor outta here. It's disingenuous and clogs this board up with bullshit.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
Be honest, champ. You can't bullshit me with this "I believe in the poor's ability to lift themselves up therefore I advocate pulling aid" horseshit. You can't bullshit a bullshitter.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Well what is your concern then if it's not pretty much solely your own financial well being? Like I said, I don't have a problem with that really but as I see it people who are against higher taxes for richer people can argue two things: self-interest and fairness. Self-interest is a major part of democratic republic and everyone can vote their own interest so that's fine, but with fairness you have to get into a lot of deeper discussions regarding how level the playing field actually is before complaining about being "unfairly" taxed.
What are the other things you can argue against people with more money paying slightly higher taxes? Trickle-down economics is an unmitigated failure in practice, so that's out.
What are the other things you can argue against people with more money paying slightly higher taxes? Trickle-down economics is an unmitigated failure in practice, so that's out.
Be honest, champ. You can't bullshit me with this "I believe in the poor's ability to lift themselves up therefore I advocate pulling aid" horseshit. You can't bullshit a bullshitter.
My life---much like yours---is going to be just fine either way. If I didn't care about others, I'd take your approach, which is leave them struggling and dependent on subsistence aid. I wouldn't insist that we set the necessary preconditions for upward mobility as part of our plan. I'd indulge your soft bigotry and send them some aid, mainly because I'd feel good about myself. Oh, and I would most certainly yell at anyone else who hasn't similarly given up on these people. That would make me feel even better about myself.
Who is arguing that? Also, what's the difference between "slightly higher" and "nearly all"?
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
People arguing against that:
1. Anybody in favor of a flat tax (regressive tax)
2. Anybody in favor of the libertarian "Fair Tax" idea or whatever they're calling it this week
3. Anybody citing stats indicating that the top 1% makes up X amount of the country's income but pays more than X percent in taxes
4. Summing up 1-3: almost everybody in the Republican Party
1. Anybody in favor of a flat tax (regressive tax)
2. Anybody in favor of the libertarian "Fair Tax" idea or whatever they're calling it this week
3. Anybody citing stats indicating that the top 1% makes up X amount of the country's income but pays more than X percent in taxes
4. Summing up 1-3: almost everybody in the Republican Party
Given that 1 & 2 aren't close to our current policy, and point #3 is a provable fact (note carefully that arguing provable facts is apparently frowned upon....a curious development if ever there was one), is it a fair characterization of our current system when critics decry high income earners as not paying their "fair share"? If any argument that they shouldn't pay even more is deemed solely out of self-interest, then do the people paying for the system not even have standing to argue what their "fair share" should be? Could you think of a more totalitarian notion than that?
BarcaDeac
Well-known member
Haha I'm in the middle of season 3 and still waiting for it to make sense to me. Looks like it won't ever.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
You asked me who was arguing against people with more money paying slightly higher taxes. I gave you a list of four groups of people who are doing this. What does that have to do with the fact that 1 and 2 aren't close to our current policy? What does it have to do with number 3 being a provable fact? I'm pointing out people who are doing 1-3 are those who are arguing against people with more money paying slightly higher taxes percentage-wise.
Arguing provable facts is definitely not frowned upon, but interesting that you would bring that up since most of your debate on welfare on the other thread last week involved you avoiding any facts that were brought up that didn't indicate your view was correct.
I don't really understand what your point is in the last few sentences. Nobody said they don't have standing to argue about what percentage of taxes they should be paying. I don't think anybody has talked about that.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
You can repeat your little tap dance is many times as you want. No one, least of all me, is buying it. And you have failed to sell it, because it is transparent.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I just have no idea how a moderately intelligent person could possibly believe that people advocating for the government to continue providing money to individuals to insure that they have food to eat rather than starving on the street would say that they are engaging in soft bigotry. Most people who want the welfare benefits to continue also want programs in place to provide for upward mobility...how is this engaging in any form of bigotry? It's not being a bigot to state that some people need help from society because of whatever factors necessitated this point.
That's an argument I would expect a four year old to make. It's that fucking dumb.
That's an argument I would expect a four year old to make. It's that fucking dumb.
My point is straight forward: "the rich" would be happy to pay "slightly higher" taxes, versus their pro rata share of income, since that would be a significant tax cut from their current share of income tax burden. If we're going to have this debate, we might as well deal with the facts as they are, rather than resort to rhetoric. A significant percentage of the people (including some in high (and indeed, highest) of places) are fond of arguing that we should steepen our existing progressive tax system to the point where the hated "rich" start "paying their fair share."
In assessing our current system, do you believe that upper income earners are paying their "fair" share?
If the answer is yes (as people who understand how percentages work will tell you that math says it is), then is the question "How do we get them to pay even more", or should we turn to the question of how much we actually need to collect in the first place, and perhaps return our spending to those levels? If we're really trying to set the right levels of revenue, why does the rhetoric from the left persist in being "retributive" in tone?
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I don't equate fair with equal, I equate fair with equitable.
I think it is equitable that someone making 1 million dollars pays an effective tax rate around 32-33% while someone making 25k pays an effective tax rate around 13-15%. The person who is making a million dollars more likely than not has benefitted tremendously from societal forces bestowing some sort of privilege upon that group. I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that white males make up a greater percentage of millionaires in America than any other group and that this percentage is higher than the percentage of white males in America overall.
I think it is equitable that someone making 1 million dollars pays an effective tax rate around 32-33% while someone making 25k pays an effective tax rate around 13-15%. The person who is making a million dollars more likely than not has benefitted tremendously from societal forces bestowing some sort of privilege upon that group. I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that white males make up a greater percentage of millionaires in America than any other group and that this percentage is higher than the percentage of white males in America overall.