Author Topic: California Prop 8  (Read 4380 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2008, 11:52:56 PM »
Do we really depend on 2% of us to pay for everything?


Good thing they make a lot of money.


kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2008, 03:43:44 AM »
from time to time I`ve seen this pop up about the 2% paying most of the taxes.

To me it`s just looks like those 2%  think the other 98% ain`t working hard enough.
it just don`t bring sympathy for the 2%

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2008, 04:22:21 AM »
It's not supposed to Kimba.  It's supposed to re-introduce both objectivity & fairness into the discussion
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2008, 08:12:26 AM »
It's not supposed to Kimba.  It's supposed to re-introduce both objectivity & fairness into the discussion


Sine there is NO WAY that 2% could produce such a huge amount of goods and services for the society, it indicates that the distribution of rewards in our society is hideously skewed and very unfair.

The LEAST we can do is to force these guys to pay for their fair share of the governance of the society that benefits them so much more than what they actually produce.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2008, 12:56:25 PM »
Quote
The LEAST we can do is to force these guys to pay for their fair share of the governance of the society that benefits them so much more than what they actually produce.

Seamus,

This is another example of laws passed that take away rights from a sub class.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2008, 01:04:59 PM »
Tax money and rights are different things. The assumption is that everyone is born with the same rights.

If everyone were born with the same sum of money, progressive taxation might not be necessary.

People should pay according to their ability to pay, which is largely identical to the amount that this society benefits them.

No court in the existence of the country has ever ruled that progressive taxation is against anyone's rights. Even if this is true theoretically, the 16th Amendment authorizes progressive taxation.

So what you really need to do here is to abandon the bogus argument that money equals rights and campaign for a Constitutional Amendment that bans progressive taxation.

Steve Forbes campaigned unsuccessfully on his flat tax, and it was insufficiently popular to even win him the VP nomination, so it would be an uphill fight.

As Spongebob once said to Plankton, when Plankton announced his plan for world conquest "good luch with that".

 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2008, 01:40:37 PM »
Quote
So what you really need to do here is to abandon the bogus argument that money equals rights and campaign for a Constitutional Amendment that bans progressive taxation.

Money is property. And ownership of property is a right. The taking of property by the govt is limited by the constitution.

It is illegal for me to charge you more for a standardized service because of your race, creed, nation or origin or gender. Why should the same not apply to the size of your portfolio.

Philosophically you are advocating treating one class differently than another. And the reason you can get away with it is because that class is small.




Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2008, 02:32:26 PM »

It is illegal for me to charge you more for a standardized service because of your race, creed, nation or origin or gender. Why should the same not apply to the size of your portfolio.

The size of your portfolio  does not determined your "class".

You have no control over your race, national origin or gender. Your religion is a guaranteed right apat from the others mentioned. Your income is determined voluntarily, by what you choose as an occupation.


The reason is, as I described. The XVI Amendment says that the income tax can be whatever Congress has specified. It has been a progressive tax since the Amendment was passed.

Philosophically you are advocating treating one class differently than another. And the reason you can get away with it is because that class is small.

No I can say this because we have freedom of speech.

The government can do what it wishes because people elected the Congress that decided the XVI Amendment, and presumably, could change it . Until this happens, it is futile for you to go on and on about unfairness. I do not make tax policy. I do, however, favor a progressive tax, and I consider this to be inherently fair. Rich people consume more government services, unless you refer to jails.

I favor the abolition of the Electoral College and limited terms for Supreme Court appointees. I think the people should decide which justice is the Chief Justice, too. But it is futile to bitch about how this is unfair, because I see the limitations involved in changing this.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2008, 04:13:03 PM »
Quote
So what you really need to do here is to abandon the bogus argument that money equals rights and campaign for a Constitutional Amendment that bans progressive taxation.

Money is property. And ownership of property is a right. The taking of property by the govt is limited by the constitution....Philosophically you are advocating treating one class differently than another. And the reason you can get away with it is because that class is small.

BINGO
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2008, 04:26:09 PM »
Again and once more: a business person making $250K is benefiting far more from the system and probably from the government as well, and SHOULD pay more, being as he is getting more.

Denmark has abolished poverty and nearly everyone there lives better and longer than here, not because Denmark is blessed with more resources than the US, but because incomes are more equitably distributed. Their sysytem offers a greater good for a greater number than ours does, because this nasty selfishness is not built into their system.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2008, 08:04:13 PM »
Quote
Again and once more: a business person making $250K is benefiting far more from the system and probably from the government as well, and SHOULD pay more, being as he is getting more.

Since the govt is collecting the taxes how does a successful person benefit far more from this same  govt.




Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2008, 09:44:13 PM »
Personal Message (Offline)
   
   
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #40 on: Today at 07:04:13 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote
Again and once more: a business person making $250K is benefiting far more from the system and probably from the government as well, and SHOULD pay more, being as he is getting more.

Since the govt is collecting the taxes how does a successful person benefit far more from this same  govt.

Duh. he is benefiting from government streets and highways to deliver his merchandise or service, he is benefiting from the Dept of Commerce in selling it abroad, and police protection so he does not get ripped off.

Capitalism, once more, does not reward people based on their service to humanity. The rewards are due more to chance than anything else. Luck, chance, being in the right place at the right time, perhaps being more intelligent. A progressive tax makes things more equitable. There is not an infinite pie here: for every guy that makes $250,000, there is someone else who makes a tenth as much and may actually contribute more.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2008, 06:33:09 AM »
Quote
Duh. he is benefiting from government streets and highways to deliver his merchandise or service, he is benefiting from the Dept of Commerce in selling it abroad, and police protection so he does not get ripped off.

Well duh, back to you.

If he is using the streets more he is paying more in fuel and ad valurum vehicle taxes at the state and local levels, and his police and fire protection comes fom the higher property taxes he pays for commercial property, and if his business is a print shop what deos he need the DOC for?

Please explain why he should also pay higher income taxes.



Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2008, 10:28:26 AM »
and if his business is a print shop what deos he need the DOC for?

There are very few printers that could conceivably pay themselves a $250K salary.

Here in Miami, the second largest industry is printing: there are at least 30 magazines destined for Latin American and the Caribbean that do some or all of their printing here, mostly because they have lower rates. I imaging that the DOC has a lot to do with them getting those contracts. Selecciones del Reader's Digest and all the Venezuelan de Armas publications are printed here. I don't think their CEOs make any $250K a year, either.

Again. the tax is not confiscatory. I think that the paltry after-taxes $175K after paying the IRS would not be all that hard to live on.

 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2008, 08:59:55 PM »
Quote
There are very few printers that could conceivably pay themselves a $250K salary.

I can name at the minimum one in Atlanta. Quality printing has margins of 30-40%. Figure a mid size company does 10 million in sales and 250k is a low salary for the owner and principal stockholder.