American Taxes 101 (an analogy)
-
Please note that eating in the analogy equates to living in America. However, the fundamental point is that class warfare is stupid and selfish. > the first 5 men would be dead of starvation (having no income) Wrong. A jobeless, homeless person recieves a check for 240 dollars every month. There's no incentive to get a job, learn a skill, or otherwise get of the doll. I'm not against lending someone a hand when they need it, but not because they feel entitled to it. A better solution is the proposed welfare reform by Health and Human Services secratary Tommy Tompson, which is similar to his 1996 "Wisconsin Works" program. >It would, instead, be better to distribute $2 among the 10 men. No. It would be better to give people back the money taken from them. It would be better to distribute the tax burden as a shared burden. >After all, the constitution says that all men (and women, I suppose!) are created equal. Its a shame it doesn't say taxed equal. The few really rich people (that had to work for their wealth, not just sign a movie contract and roll the dice) I've met mow their own lawns, watch their pocket books and generally manage their finances in an intellegent mannor.
I was trying to stay within the confines of your analogy, so bringing up welfare income is not fair, but it does prove my point that the analogy is a poor one. :) Regardless of the analogy, I still disagree with your point. Class warfare exists because few people have, and most don't--- The poor, being poor, have few choices. For example, I really struggle with sending my son to private school, which I am grateful I have the choice to do because of my income. But I barely have the choice. The rich should get taxed more, and get less of a tax cut, because it gives more choice to the poor, and takes away significantly less choice from the rich. But this puts it all into the realm of philosophy, which requires thinking, which hasn't been done since the days of the revolution--philosophy, that is. And the few rich people I've met have gotten lucky in the stock market, won the lottery, or inherited their wealth. They certainly didn't work for it, not the way a lot of blue color workers I've seen work. I work for a rich guy (and I'm grateful to have a job, mind you) that doesn't do much besides show up for work and tell other people what to do. That's how he stay rich now. And by paying sh*t wages, some employees (good ones, too) haven't gotten a raise in 5 years, and he's loathed by everyone for his management style. Fortunately, being a consultant, I can avoid all that crap. But he employs a lot of poor (being a boatyard owner), and while they're grateful to have a job, they all feel they are being treated like dogmeat. For example, he spent about $10,000 on gifts to his customers, and $3,000 on bonuses ($100 cash for his 30 employees). (Yes, you can argue business practices...) Furthermore, the rich people I've met (for example, the CEO of a well known satellite manufacturer) couldn't care less about the people working for them. In fact, he knowingly lied to his people for his own personal gain. And I don't know any rich that mow their own lawns. A drive through Beverly Hills can demonstrate that--their all migrant workers doing the gardening. Heck, even I had an illegal alien doing my gardening when I lived in San Diego. Didn't know a person that didn't. Tax 'em to death, I say, because the rich are no longer hard working ethical people that shape the future of this country for the benefit of all (if they ever were). They're bastards, and their sole intent is to put money in their pockets at the expense of the average Joe. Enron, WorldComm, and a slew of others demonstrate th
-
Yes, ultimately it comes down to the original question of "how much should each person pay?" In the case of the latest tax cuts (which mostly affect the rich), Bush is essentially saying, "the current situation asks the rich to pay too much". It all depends on that calculation. Relative to other countries, the US does seem to favor the rich, but "what other countries do" is not an objective measure of anything. A great deal of the ideas of "what is a fair tax system" revolves around people's perceptions of wealth and how it is aquired. Some people will say that wealth comes from hard work and determination -- in other words the rich have earned every penny. If this is your perception, you might think the rich get taxed too much. On the other hand, if you think the rich are rich because they didn't have to deal with racism, they inherited it, they won it in a lottery, or they were lucky enough to have access to education -- then you probably see wealth as something which isn't earned (and therefore, isn't completely deserved). Instead, wealth just falls into your lap by accident of birth. In this view, the rich should be heavily taxed (because they didn't do anything to earn it) and the poor should be given healthy sums of free money. The situation is varies from person to person (some really did earn it and others had it fall into their lap). But, quite a few people will emphasize one side or the other and then use this to justify their ideas about taxes. (Unsurprisingly, the rich are likely to say they earned it and the poor are likely to say it was all an accident of birth.) I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore." It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. If they moved from the US to another developed country, they would most likely end up paying more in taxes. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. There's an awful lot of space in this quote. The important thing the the quantitative benefit. IMO, you can't really talk about any particular tax cut very intelligently without a graph because words are inadequate to describe the effects of any given tax cut -- a fact which republicans and democrats are eager to use for their own benefit. I also wanted to point out that your analogy misses another point which might affect people's opinion about taxes: how much money people have. If the first four men were
>It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. Those who own businesses and employ people can. For example, a clothing retailer can choose not to stay open so long and employ less people. Once you raise taxes to a certain point, there's no since in working hard since the government will take most of it anyway. The other problem is the definition of rich is currently anyone earning over 92k a year. This is what a firefighter earns working in Marin county. >The important thing the the quantitative benefit. As I am white (primarily German & Dutch decent), I reap nothing from entitlement programs other than a sense of trying to help someone out who screwed themselves, got screwed by the system, or had a bad run of luck. I don't think someone who worked hard and got rich, was born rich, or got lucky should be robbed to support the other. >-- a fact which republicans and democrats are eager to use for their own benefit. Heh, politican is as politican does. >Those people making money on stock dividends didn't do any work Actually I'm working right now (well not RIGHT now). My father was a factory worker for 35 years, a goodly portion of his retirement comes from stocks and dividends. But then again, he's probably rich by current standards.
-
Please note that eating in the analogy equates to living in America. However, the fundamental point is that class warfare is stupid and selfish. > the first 5 men would be dead of starvation (having no income) Wrong. A jobeless, homeless person recieves a check for 240 dollars every month. There's no incentive to get a job, learn a skill, or otherwise get of the doll. I'm not against lending someone a hand when they need it, but not because they feel entitled to it. A better solution is the proposed welfare reform by Health and Human Services secratary Tommy Tompson, which is similar to his 1996 "Wisconsin Works" program. >It would, instead, be better to distribute $2 among the 10 men. No. It would be better to give people back the money taken from them. It would be better to distribute the tax burden as a shared burden. >After all, the constitution says that all men (and women, I suppose!) are created equal. Its a shame it doesn't say taxed equal. The few really rich people (that had to work for their wealth, not just sign a movie contract and roll the dice) I've met mow their own lawns, watch their pocket books and generally manage their finances in an intellegent mannor.
So, if you got 240 dollars a month free, you would be homeless and jobless - or what? People go to get this 240 dollars/month out of helplessness. Don't make a mockery out of their misfortune. Probably, they were born to other homeless people or became homeless because their "cooking skills at BK" was suddenly out of vogue. Not everyone was born in a rich or middle class family. It is a commitment that a society makes at being humane - not let another die of starvation. The taxation laws are subject to criticism everywhere. The "wild wild west" is still here - the domain just moved to the economy from physical skills. I do not know the answer to your questions. But, equality is a myth, and can never be achieved. How abt equality of opportunity? How about equality of conditons when you are born? When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society - and it means taking care of the people, who are down and out. -Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Marc Clifton wrote: It would, instead, be better to distribute $2 among the 10 men. After all, the constitution says that all men (and women, I suppose!) are created equal. Wouldn't that be more like communism? created equal does not mean they are equal throughout their lives. It simply means that the law should not treat them differently when justice is being served. Any other interpretation suggests you and i are one and same, which of course we aren't. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
Wouldn't that be more like communism? What is wrong with communism (or socialism), except for the fact that it's been abused by a few people because human nature is basically greedy? created equal does not mean they are equal throughout their lives. In my opinion, yes they are. Personally, I wish we had a flat tax system. But of course the gov't wouldn't go for that because, among other reasons, a gazzillion tax accountants, lawyers, and auditors would lose their jobs. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka -
>It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. Those who own businesses and employ people can. For example, a clothing retailer can choose not to stay open so long and employ less people. Once you raise taxes to a certain point, there's no since in working hard since the government will take most of it anyway. The other problem is the definition of rich is currently anyone earning over 92k a year. This is what a firefighter earns working in Marin county. >The important thing the the quantitative benefit. As I am white (primarily German & Dutch decent), I reap nothing from entitlement programs other than a sense of trying to help someone out who screwed themselves, got screwed by the system, or had a bad run of luck. I don't think someone who worked hard and got rich, was born rich, or got lucky should be robbed to support the other. >-- a fact which republicans and democrats are eager to use for their own benefit. Heh, politican is as politican does. >Those people making money on stock dividends didn't do any work Actually I'm working right now (well not RIGHT now). My father was a factory worker for 35 years, a goodly portion of his retirement comes from stocks and dividends. But then again, he's probably rich by current standards.
The other problem is the definition of rich is currently anyone earning over 92k a year. Well, you use the quote that the richest 10% pay 69% of the taxes. The richest 10% is defined as "anyone earning more than 92K". But, that's a wide-open range. We might discover, for example, that the richest 90 percentile through the richest 99th percentile pay only 20% of the taxes, but that last 1% pays the other 49%. That last 1% might be averaging 10 million dollars/year in income. It'd be interesting to know how much Bill Gates ALONE pays in taxes. You might discover, for example, that Bill Gates increases the total percentage that "the rich pays" by a significant amount. This would have the effect of making that guy who makes 92k seem like he pays a lot of taxes, when, in fact, it's the ultra-rich (the top 1% or 0.1%) who are really paying the taxes. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Wouldn't that be more like communism? What is wrong with communism (or socialism), except for the fact that it's been abused by a few people because human nature is basically greedy? created equal does not mean they are equal throughout their lives. In my opinion, yes they are. Personally, I wish we had a flat tax system. But of course the gov't wouldn't go for that because, among other reasons, a gazzillion tax accountants, lawyers, and auditors would lose their jobs. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka MuraokaThe problem with communism is people are, as you said too greedy and self-centered for it ever work in reality. There is no incentive for people to improve their lot. The equality you are suggesting works if everyone is on the same page, and is willing to work together to manufacture only those things that everyone wants and needs, so that no one has A, but would like B, and vice versa. I think the human species will have advance beyond its petty self-centered nature and be able to view the species and planet as one connected unit, sort of like ants, in order for something like communism to work. I'm not saying we can't use improvement because that much is painfully obvious, but my views definitely lie in the other direction. :) Marc Clifton wrote: I wish we had a flat tax system That I do like. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
-
I was trying to stay within the confines of your analogy, so bringing up welfare income is not fair, but it does prove my point that the analogy is a poor one. :) Regardless of the analogy, I still disagree with your point. Class warfare exists because few people have, and most don't--- The poor, being poor, have few choices. For example, I really struggle with sending my son to private school, which I am grateful I have the choice to do because of my income. But I barely have the choice. The rich should get taxed more, and get less of a tax cut, because it gives more choice to the poor, and takes away significantly less choice from the rich. But this puts it all into the realm of philosophy, which requires thinking, which hasn't been done since the days of the revolution--philosophy, that is. And the few rich people I've met have gotten lucky in the stock market, won the lottery, or inherited their wealth. They certainly didn't work for it, not the way a lot of blue color workers I've seen work. I work for a rich guy (and I'm grateful to have a job, mind you) that doesn't do much besides show up for work and tell other people what to do. That's how he stay rich now. And by paying sh*t wages, some employees (good ones, too) haven't gotten a raise in 5 years, and he's loathed by everyone for his management style. Fortunately, being a consultant, I can avoid all that crap. But he employs a lot of poor (being a boatyard owner), and while they're grateful to have a job, they all feel they are being treated like dogmeat. For example, he spent about $10,000 on gifts to his customers, and $3,000 on bonuses ($100 cash for his 30 employees). (Yes, you can argue business practices...) Furthermore, the rich people I've met (for example, the CEO of a well known satellite manufacturer) couldn't care less about the people working for them. In fact, he knowingly lied to his people for his own personal gain. And I don't know any rich that mow their own lawns. A drive through Beverly Hills can demonstrate that--their all migrant workers doing the gardening. Heck, even I had an illegal alien doing my gardening when I lived in San Diego. Didn't know a person that didn't. Tax 'em to death, I say, because the rich are no longer hard working ethical people that shape the future of this country for the benefit of all (if they ever were). They're bastards, and their sole intent is to put money in their pockets at the expense of the average Joe. Enron, WorldComm, and a slew of others demonstrate th
-
Agreed. If you make a million bucks a year and 75% of your income all goes back to taxes, you're still left with $250,000. If you make $50K a year and give away 50% of your income to taxes, you're only left with $25K. Percentages be damned.
But what gives you the right to say that I should not get to keep my $250,000. Even if a stuff all under a mattress, or burn it. It's mine. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
-
Agreed. If you make a million bucks a year and 75% of your income all goes back to taxes, you're still left with $250,000. If you make $50K a year and give away 50% of your income to taxes, you're only left with $25K. Percentages be damned.
If you make a million bucks a year and 75% of your income all goes back to taxes, you're still left with $250,000. If you make $50K a year and give away 50% of your income to taxes, you're only left with $25K. :-D If the tax were, say, 15%, then the guy with a million bucks would be able to afford hiring a few more of the $50K workers. Or giving them raises to $75K. Wouldn't that be nice? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka -
I though you would find the following interesting. How Taxes Work.... Keep in mind that 10% of the population pays ~69% of the taxes, ie: those "rich" people making over 92k per year (like a firefighter in Marin county). Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language-- a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. T
Exceptionally well stated! :) If I may add one last point... It is capital investment that drives economic growth. Without the wealth of business and individuals, we're talking third world! It is the rich and the industrious, entrepreneurial types that create work and income for the masses. If you free up more of their money, it will go to work in the economy, eventually benefiting all.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker
This space for rent or lease
-
But what gives you the right to say that I should not get to keep my $250,000. Even if a stuff all under a mattress, or burn it. It's mine. BW "Gandalf. Yes. That is what they used to call me. Gandalf the Grey. *I* am Gandalf the White." - Gandalf the White
...but you do get to keep the $250K. I mentioned if you make a million a year and taxed at 75%, $250K is what you're left with. So yeah, it's totally yours and you're free to do whatever you want with it...the same could be said about the amount left to the guy making 50K and left with 25K.
-
>It's not like the rich can just opt-out of the tax system. Those who own businesses and employ people can. For example, a clothing retailer can choose not to stay open so long and employ less people. Once you raise taxes to a certain point, there's no since in working hard since the government will take most of it anyway. The other problem is the definition of rich is currently anyone earning over 92k a year. This is what a firefighter earns working in Marin county. >The important thing the the quantitative benefit. As I am white (primarily German & Dutch decent), I reap nothing from entitlement programs other than a sense of trying to help someone out who screwed themselves, got screwed by the system, or had a bad run of luck. I don't think someone who worked hard and got rich, was born rich, or got lucky should be robbed to support the other. >-- a fact which republicans and democrats are eager to use for their own benefit. Heh, politican is as politican does. >Those people making money on stock dividends didn't do any work Actually I'm working right now (well not RIGHT now). My father was a factory worker for 35 years, a goodly portion of his retirement comes from stocks and dividends. But then again, he's probably rich by current standards.
You say $92K a year is *not* rich? Where do you live? If I were making $92K, I'd be livin' it large here in KY. :cool: As it is, I'm nowhere *near* that, and I still do better than many. You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
-
You say $92K a year is *not* rich? Where do you live? If I were making $92K, I'd be livin' it large here in KY. :cool: As it is, I'm nowhere *near* that, and I still do better than many. You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
A firefighter in Marin county. Thats the current example. It costs alot to live there; to buy groceries, rent a place, pay for gas. Its not rich in the Bill Gates sense of the word. Nor does rich vary with cost of living
-
I was trying to stay within the confines of your analogy, so bringing up welfare income is not fair, but it does prove my point that the analogy is a poor one. :) Regardless of the analogy, I still disagree with your point. Class warfare exists because few people have, and most don't--- The poor, being poor, have few choices. For example, I really struggle with sending my son to private school, which I am grateful I have the choice to do because of my income. But I barely have the choice. The rich should get taxed more, and get less of a tax cut, because it gives more choice to the poor, and takes away significantly less choice from the rich. But this puts it all into the realm of philosophy, which requires thinking, which hasn't been done since the days of the revolution--philosophy, that is. And the few rich people I've met have gotten lucky in the stock market, won the lottery, or inherited their wealth. They certainly didn't work for it, not the way a lot of blue color workers I've seen work. I work for a rich guy (and I'm grateful to have a job, mind you) that doesn't do much besides show up for work and tell other people what to do. That's how he stay rich now. And by paying sh*t wages, some employees (good ones, too) haven't gotten a raise in 5 years, and he's loathed by everyone for his management style. Fortunately, being a consultant, I can avoid all that crap. But he employs a lot of poor (being a boatyard owner), and while they're grateful to have a job, they all feel they are being treated like dogmeat. For example, he spent about $10,000 on gifts to his customers, and $3,000 on bonuses ($100 cash for his 30 employees). (Yes, you can argue business practices...) Furthermore, the rich people I've met (for example, the CEO of a well known satellite manufacturer) couldn't care less about the people working for them. In fact, he knowingly lied to his people for his own personal gain. And I don't know any rich that mow their own lawns. A drive through Beverly Hills can demonstrate that--their all migrant workers doing the gardening. Heck, even I had an illegal alien doing my gardening when I lived in San Diego. Didn't know a person that didn't. Tax 'em to death, I say, because the rich are no longer hard working ethical people that shape the future of this country for the benefit of all (if they ever were). They're bastards, and their sole intent is to put money in their pockets at the expense of the average Joe. Enron, WorldComm, and a slew of others demonstrate th
> I say, because the rich are no longer hard working ethical people that shape the future of this country for the benefit of all (if they ever were). I know poor people that steal from others, spend their money on marijuana, alcohol, and the lottery. They rarely pay their rent or other bills, and live in section 8 housing. They're late to work, could care less if they do a quality job, and wouldn't work if Clinton hadn't reformed the never ending welfare system. Let 'em survive on their own I say. Because the poor aren't the victims they're made out to be. ...but we're not going to agree on this.
-
So, if you got 240 dollars a month free, you would be homeless and jobless - or what? People go to get this 240 dollars/month out of helplessness. Don't make a mockery out of their misfortune. Probably, they were born to other homeless people or became homeless because their "cooking skills at BK" was suddenly out of vogue. Not everyone was born in a rich or middle class family. It is a commitment that a society makes at being humane - not let another die of starvation. The taxation laws are subject to criticism everywhere. The "wild wild west" is still here - the domain just moved to the economy from physical skills. I do not know the answer to your questions. But, equality is a myth, and can never be achieved. How abt equality of opportunity? How about equality of conditons when you are born? When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society - and it means taking care of the people, who are down and out. -Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
>People go to get this 240 dollars/month out of helplessness. I don't believe that to be entirely true, or at least not true in the majority. >It is a commitment that a society makes at being humane - not let another die of starvation. Yes and no. There's also tough love, letting people struggle on their own instead of coddling them. The choice we need to make is on an individual basis. Some people need tough love, some people need a grant, some people need to spend time in a mental health clinic. The current system is selfish and nieve. The systems that one group of people should be robbed to make up for the situation of another. > When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society Why does the government make the choice on how and who I will help? I don't think thats the right way to do it. Period.
-
I was trying to stay within the confines of your analogy, so bringing up welfare income is not fair, but it does prove my point that the analogy is a poor one. :) Regardless of the analogy, I still disagree with your point. Class warfare exists because few people have, and most don't--- The poor, being poor, have few choices. For example, I really struggle with sending my son to private school, which I am grateful I have the choice to do because of my income. But I barely have the choice. The rich should get taxed more, and get less of a tax cut, because it gives more choice to the poor, and takes away significantly less choice from the rich. But this puts it all into the realm of philosophy, which requires thinking, which hasn't been done since the days of the revolution--philosophy, that is. And the few rich people I've met have gotten lucky in the stock market, won the lottery, or inherited their wealth. They certainly didn't work for it, not the way a lot of blue color workers I've seen work. I work for a rich guy (and I'm grateful to have a job, mind you) that doesn't do much besides show up for work and tell other people what to do. That's how he stay rich now. And by paying sh*t wages, some employees (good ones, too) haven't gotten a raise in 5 years, and he's loathed by everyone for his management style. Fortunately, being a consultant, I can avoid all that crap. But he employs a lot of poor (being a boatyard owner), and while they're grateful to have a job, they all feel they are being treated like dogmeat. For example, he spent about $10,000 on gifts to his customers, and $3,000 on bonuses ($100 cash for his 30 employees). (Yes, you can argue business practices...) Furthermore, the rich people I've met (for example, the CEO of a well known satellite manufacturer) couldn't care less about the people working for them. In fact, he knowingly lied to his people for his own personal gain. And I don't know any rich that mow their own lawns. A drive through Beverly Hills can demonstrate that--their all migrant workers doing the gardening. Heck, even I had an illegal alien doing my gardening when I lived in San Diego. Didn't know a person that didn't. Tax 'em to death, I say, because the rich are no longer hard working ethical people that shape the future of this country for the benefit of all (if they ever were). They're bastards, and their sole intent is to put money in their pockets at the expense of the average Joe. Enron, WorldComm, and a slew of others demonstrate th
>Class warfare exists because few people have Class warefare exists because it gets politians elected. Class warefare exists because it appeals to a section of poor people that like feeling "victemized". As a Marine I earned ~13k a year with free room and board (If you call frequenting sleeping bag and eating cold MRE room and board). As a voulenteer for AmeriCorps I earned about the same wihout the room and board. Now I earn six figures, and during everyone of those periods I never felt like the rich owed me anything.
-
So, if you got 240 dollars a month free, you would be homeless and jobless - or what? People go to get this 240 dollars/month out of helplessness. Don't make a mockery out of their misfortune. Probably, they were born to other homeless people or became homeless because their "cooking skills at BK" was suddenly out of vogue. Not everyone was born in a rich or middle class family. It is a commitment that a society makes at being humane - not let another die of starvation. The taxation laws are subject to criticism everywhere. The "wild wild west" is still here - the domain just moved to the economy from physical skills. I do not know the answer to your questions. But, equality is a myth, and can never be achieved. How abt equality of opportunity? How about equality of conditons when you are born? When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society - and it means taking care of the people, who are down and out. -Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society - and it means taking care of the people, who are down and out. That is a well thought out and good response. Be prepared for the capitalistic short sighted Americans to start calling you a Communist. I think I am more forgiving on this subject than I have been in the past. 13 months out of work after 15 years in the work force will do that to you. Combine that with the fact I am now earning 52% of what I was previously gross and now no technical employer wants to know me as I am out of the technoly curve (that's what they say) I'm not a happy chappy. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
I was trying to stay within the confines of your analogy, so bringing up welfare income is not fair, but it does prove my point that the analogy is a poor one. :) Regardless of the analogy, I still disagree with your point. Class warfare exists because few people have, and most don't--- The poor, being poor, have few choices. For example, I really struggle with sending my son to private school, which I am grateful I have the choice to do because of my income. But I barely have the choice. The rich should get taxed more, and get less of a tax cut, because it gives more choice to the poor, and takes away significantly less choice from the rich. But this puts it all into the realm of philosophy, which requires thinking, which hasn't been done since the days of the revolution--philosophy, that is. And the few rich people I've met have gotten lucky in the stock market, won the lottery, or inherited their wealth. They certainly didn't work for it, not the way a lot of blue color workers I've seen work. I work for a rich guy (and I'm grateful to have a job, mind you) that doesn't do much besides show up for work and tell other people what to do. That's how he stay rich now. And by paying sh*t wages, some employees (good ones, too) haven't gotten a raise in 5 years, and he's loathed by everyone for his management style. Fortunately, being a consultant, I can avoid all that crap. But he employs a lot of poor (being a boatyard owner), and while they're grateful to have a job, they all feel they are being treated like dogmeat. For example, he spent about $10,000 on gifts to his customers, and $3,000 on bonuses ($100 cash for his 30 employees). (Yes, you can argue business practices...) Furthermore, the rich people I've met (for example, the CEO of a well known satellite manufacturer) couldn't care less about the people working for them. In fact, he knowingly lied to his people for his own personal gain. And I don't know any rich that mow their own lawns. A drive through Beverly Hills can demonstrate that--their all migrant workers doing the gardening. Heck, even I had an illegal alien doing my gardening when I lived in San Diego. Didn't know a person that didn't. Tax 'em to death, I say, because the rich are no longer hard working ethical people that shape the future of this country for the benefit of all (if they ever were). They're bastards, and their sole intent is to put money in their pockets at the expense of the average Joe. Enron, WorldComm, and a slew of others demonstrate th
Marc Clifton wrote: And the few rich people I've met have gotten lucky in the stock market, won the lottery, or inherited their wealth. They certainly didn't work for it, not the way a lot of blue color workers I've seen work Read in a pub, this week-end "If you want to earn you life, then work for this. But if you want to be rich, find something else"
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
>People go to get this 240 dollars/month out of helplessness. I don't believe that to be entirely true, or at least not true in the majority. >It is a commitment that a society makes at being humane - not let another die of starvation. Yes and no. There's also tough love, letting people struggle on their own instead of coddling them. The choice we need to make is on an individual basis. Some people need tough love, some people need a grant, some people need to spend time in a mental health clinic. The current system is selfish and nieve. The systems that one group of people should be robbed to make up for the situation of another. > When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society Why does the government make the choice on how and who I will help? I don't think thats the right way to do it. Period.
Government is who you elected so that civil society can function smoothly. When there is a section of society that starves and have no home, they should not be dependent on the "charity" of others. In other words, humans decides that we deem life as precious; and is willing to chip in to make that better for all our fellow humans. Governments came in as a way to make society work by enforcing law and order, and providing a safety net. The taxation laws are what the society as a whole agrees to - to generate revenue for the causes. You do not believe that government should do welfare actions, and probably be left to non-governmental organizations. The problem with that is there is no accountability. I cannot tell a private organization that I am eligible according to teir norms and therefore, they *have* to aid me, and that they cannot deny me help. But, that accountability is possible in the case of the government, which is handling public funds. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Thomas George wrote: When you earn more (working more or less - should it matter), you are placed with more responsibility towards your society - and it means taking care of the people, who are down and out. That is a well thought out and good response. Be prepared for the capitalistic short sighted Americans to start calling you a Communist. I think I am more forgiving on this subject than I have been in the past. 13 months out of work after 15 years in the work force will do that to you. Combine that with the fact I am now earning 52% of what I was previously gross and now no technical employer wants to know me as I am out of the technoly curve (that's what they say) I'm not a happy chappy. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
Michael Martin wrote: Be prepared for the capitalistic short sighted Americans to start calling you a Communist. With these criteria even the Prince Charles is a communist :eek: The vision changes when looking from the other side of the mirror. Everyone should live this once, but no more than once
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop