COMMENTS:
Neither, it treats everyone as equals.
Ah the simplicity of the naive mind...
And how pray does it treat everyone as equals?
Or is this just 'take an opposite stance to Steelhamster for its own sake' comment?
I shall return tomorrow to see the progress of this ballot, need some sleep its 3:30 am here, up in 4 hours.
Voted : The Rich
A major proponent of the flat tax is Steve Forbes, the ultra-geek Republican, who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from his gay dad.
That says a lot.
A flat tax treats everyone as equals the way a six foot deep swimming pool would treat everyone who stood in it equally.
Voted : The Poor
Obviously, the wealthy can spare 10, or 20, or whatever percentage you name, more easily than the poor. Consider: A wealthy man with an income of, say, a million a year would pay 200K a year under the 20 percent scheme, leaving him with 800K to spend. A poor man making 20K a year would pay 4K a year under the same percentage, leaving him 16K a year to spend. Now, you tell me who the 20 percent hit the hardest.
Voted : The Rich
Flat taxes invariably lead to civil unrest from the poor. I think that that speaks volumes.
' And how pray does it treat everyone as equals?'
How could it possibly be more simple? Everyone is taxed the same, thus they are treated as equals. It assumes everyone must play a role in supporting their country, everyone must make some sacrifice. So proportionally they all do make the same sacrifice.
Now, tell me how taxing some people heavily and others not at all treats people as equals.
Should taxes be viewed more as a punishment for success, or as a burden everyone in society should bear to provide for basic services?
Well, Mr. Herzog, your comment above treats wealth as something created only by the wealthy. In point of fact, wealth is created by workers. No one has ever gotten rich by working in their own fields alone. So, much of the wealth of the rich is created by poor people. Next, this wealth was not created in a vacuum: The society which surrounds and protects its citizens is also a vital component in the creation of wealth. So, yes the wealthy should shoulder a greater burden in supporting the society within which wealth is created by workers and the security system which protects them. And before you leap and shout "socialist" at me, please address the arguments.
Voted : The Rich
Given the fact that, ab initio, the rich had more money...
'our comment above treats wealth as something created only by the wealthy'
No, it doesn't. I never said this.
'In point of fact, wealth is created by workers.'
No, wealth is created by both. Workers without a factory, a job, a manager, are unemployed and produce nothing.
'No one has ever gotten rich by working in their own fields alone'
Ok, so?
'So, much of the wealth of the rich is created by poor people.'
Not really. Wealth is created by workers, by creative minds, by free enterprise. It requires that no one suffer or be pushed in to the mud to do this. And what wealth the poor do have was created by others as well. Unless you believe workers would be better off without anyone to employ them?
Look, it doesn't really matter that you hate the rich, idealize the poor, etc etc. That wasn't the question. The question was about a flat tax, who does it benefit? And I said it treats everyone equally, as it does.
Society is about everyone helping everyone else, about shouldering certain burdens for the greater good, and these sorts of things. Why should that burden fall exclusively on the shoulders of those who were successful in life? Do the poor not recieve the benefits of police, fire protection, roads, sewers, a national defense and all the other things the government provides? Why shouldn't they bear an equal share of the burden? The way you argue makes taxes seem not as your part of keeping society running, or a revenue generating device, but as a way to punish those with more money.
Margaret: 'In point of fact, wealth is created by workers.'
Herzog: No, wealth is created by both. Workers without a factory, a job, a manager, are unemployed and produce nothing.
SH: The workers should run the factory and the profit of their labour is rightly theirs
Margaret: 'No one has ever gotten rich by working in their own fields alone'
Herzog: Ok, so?
SH: So, where is it written that one person should profit from the labours of others?
Margaret: 'So, much of the wealth of the rich is created by poor people.'
Herzog: Not really. Wealth is created by workers, by creative minds, by free enterprise. It requires that no one suffer or be pushed in to the mud to do this. And what wealth the poor do have was created by others as well. Unless you believe workers would be better off without anyone to employ them?
SH: This argument assumes that the employer is a lone entity and is able to turn a profit without the labour of the workforce. Innovation should benefit the people not enrich one person. People ARE forced to work for employers as the system exists that ensures that workers are routinely exploited. When the workers benefit from their labours EQUALLY, then we will have a more stable world.
Herzog: Look, it doesn't really matter that you hate the rich, idealize the poor, etc etc. That wasn't the question. The question was about a flat tax, who does it benefit? And I said it treats everyone equally, as it does.
Society is about everyone helping everyone else, about shouldering certain burdens for the greater good, and these sorts of things. Why should that burden fall exclusively on the shoulders of those who were successful in life? Do the poor not recieve the benefits of police, fire protection, roads, sewers, a national defense and all the other things the government provides? Why shouldn't they bear an equal share of the burden? The way you argue makes taxes seem not as your part of keeping society running, or a revenue generating device, but as a way to punish those with more money.
SH: So in essence, the rich having suckling at the teat of the workers, should then be given more? The simple fact is, that the base rate for the poor should be less than 10 percent and the rich 35 percent. Just how much money is enough for the rich? Should they not be obliged to contribute more given they did none of the actual sweating when they accrued their fortunes?
Voted : The Rich
Because to be viable, the rate will have to be higher than the poor can afford and less than the wealthy could/ should pay.
It is regressive in that a greater proportion of the poor's (and Middle Class') 'discretionary' income would be taxed at a higher rate than the current 'progressive' system(s).
From those who have benefited most from Society, more should be expected.
' SH: So, where is it written that one person should profit from the labours of others?'
We could always have a socialist/communist regime, where no one would profit from any labor, ever. But I don't think that would be the best solution.
The rest of your argument boils down to this "I, steelhamster, have failed in life and am forced to live off welfare, and as such I have chosen to demonize the rich, idealize those likewise living off public largesse rather than admit that I should simply have worked harder, to this end I will support any measure that I see as detrimental to the rich". Right, we get it, the rich are evil the poor are noble. We are all entitled to free money without doing a lick of work, we are all entitled to everything but the right to work for our own benefit.
It gets old. Besides which it's been tried and was a massive failure every time.
Ad hominem and perpetuating myths.
You seem to be falling back into your old ways again.
My arguments means ALL benefit, not the few, try to keep up.
' My arguments means ALL benefit, not the few, try to keep up'
All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
You have no tangible evidence just hyperbole.
Millions starve in the utopia you call capitalism.
Try to argue without reverting to dogma
No one starves in the west, you're thinking of the worker paradises of North Korea, China, Cuba, and Vietnam.
But as I've said before, you're free to leave the capitalist west any time you choose to journey out to the socialist east, but they may not let you come back once you get tired of working for the common good.
|
