Political & Elections

Billy · Senior Member

RE: Govt shut down

geeps20 · Senior Member

wealthy have no obligation except paying most of the taxes the government takes in.

Heirs should pay no taxes because that money has already been taxed.

Bogney · Senior Member

As I noted before, the wealthy should keep some, perhaps even most, of their inheritance, but not all of it. The argument against the "death tax" is one of the weakest. Why should dynastic wealth earned by one generation go completely to his or her heirs after death? The heirs have no moral claim to dynastic wealth that they did not earn, but are in line to receive by vitue of having chosen the right parents. Wealthy parents should be able to give their heirs substantial livings through inheritance, to augment the financial advantages their heirs have received throughtout their lives. However, government should be able to tax inherited wealth for the benefit of all.

If you concede that some level of taxation is sound policy, then we are quibbling over how much and for what purposes. If you deny that taxation is justifiable, then you have to have some reasonable construct for how society will pay for government services. Libertarians and Objectivists do not have such realistic constructs, only dystopian theories - utopian if you are privileged and wealthy - about how free markets can take care of everything, government should wither away to almost nothing, or else the rich should move to mountain paradises with their producing peers.

Blankmind, if you think that the wealthy should be able to do whatever they want with all of their money, because no one else has any right to it, then you are pretty much saying that the wealthy have no obligation to anyone but themselves. It sounds as if you believe that it is every man for himself because "life is not fair" and "it never will be." Even if you believe that it would be nice if the rich chose to share, there cannot be any moral obligation so do so if their wealth is all theirs to do whatever they want with it, and if society has no right to claim part of it in taxes. However, if I have mischaracterized your views, I would be interested in learning what social obligation, if any, you believe the wealthy have toward the poor.

They are not obliged to become poor for the poor. However, I think that they are obliged to realize that they do not "deserve" their wealth anymore than a poor child deserves to be a poor child. They should be proud of their efforts to achieve success, but humble enough to realize that the good fortune smiled on their effort, and it is not so for the majority of people. That humility should not lead them to protest modest tax increases that benefit the social safety net while still leaving them fabulously wealthy. Their goal should never be to pay no taxes, and the system should not be set up in such a way that they can succeed in that goal.

john doe · Guru

Not all wealthy have stolen it but there is a large group - particularly associated with wall street who basically have stolen it from the taxpayers.

blankmind · Senior Member

I doubt he would approach this issue the way blandmind would.

Well, since I never said how I would approach this issue, you have no basis for this statement. I am not one who thinks the wealthy have no social responsibilities anymore than I am one who thinks the wealthy are the devil.

If the rich did not "earn" it or somehow "deserve" it, then why should they keep it?

How does someone who has wealth, and didn't steal it, not deserve to keep it? If someone inherits a house from a relative, do they not deserve it? Are they to hand it over to the state because someone else thinks they didn't earn it?

Billy · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:
No disagreement of the trickery and BS of politicians, but I'm just dying to know how the wealthy being enriched happens to harm the poor. Unless you think the politicians are sticking their hands into the pockets of the poor and giving it to the wealthy (and if you are paying absolutely zero in taxes and only taking from the system, that is impossible to steal from those whom are only taking), as opposed to the wealthy working harder and producing more.

A reduction in the taxes for the rich cuts the funding of social programs, which enriches the wealthy at the expense of the poor. There's one easy reason.

I like the idea people have about how hard the wealthy work. And by I like it, I mean I am amused at this falsehood. Society is built on the backs of the working class. Show me the CEO laboring in the factory, or the rich man out in the fields. Oh, but filing papers and hiring assistants is so difficult! Surely he deserves that 4 billion a year, no matter how many people around the world starve for lack of bread.

john doe · Guru

"Not everyone should be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, or a pro basketball player. However, the market should not be the only factor in setting salaries because the market is not free, and never has been. U.S. CEOs are not worth multiples of their Asian and European counterparts. Their salaries are set by boards filled with their peers who will also benefit by comparing high CEO salaries for their positions. It is a rigged game."

or the wall street robber barons who have made out since 2008. Retirees etc living on fixed incomes and depending on cd interest have been nailed because the fed has had to flood the economy with easy money, lowering interest rates to keep things afloat because of the wall street crooks who have manipulated the system.

Bogney · Senior Member

We agree that life is not fair. I think that is a reason to do something to try to increase fairness rather than a reason to do nothing. Society should be organized to promote fairness not to maximize arbitrary differences. Society has been progressing from more unfair to less unfair over history. I see no reason to stop where we are now. The impetus to do nothing is much greater for those who have been dealt a fairly good hand by their lot in life because doing nothing benefits them.

If it does not matter how the wealthy got their wealth, then why is it theirs? Why does it make any difference if they stole it if the operating priniciple is, once they possess it, it is theirs to dispose of how they wish?

If the rich did not "earn" it or somehow "deserve" it, then why should they keep it? I think that most people agree that they do not deserve to keep "all" of it since they have an obligation to pay for fire, police, roads, military, etc. Most people, including me, believe that they should not have to give "all" of it to the state. The debate is over how much they should keep and how much should go the government for the benefit of society as a whole.

Brilliant students who get into Harvard generally believe that they "earned" it, but did they really? How many were the first born in their families? Studies show that statistically first born children achieve greater success than their siblings (and that Harvard is littered with first born children). They did not earn their birth order. The differences between those who get in, and those who are rejected are so slight as to come down to chance in many cases. There are way more extremely well qualified kids than slots in Ivy league classrooms. Except in the cases of those who are admitted due to their parent's wealth and status, hard work and ambition plays a significant role in their admission, but it hardly tells the whole story.

I do not believe in equality of outcome. However, I do not believe the current gross disparity in outcome has as much to do with personal merit or character as with skewed markets, opportunity (luck),and greed. Not everyone should be a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, or a pro basketball player. However, the market should not be the only factor in setting salaries because the market is not free, and never has been. U.S. CEOs are not worth multiples of their Asian and European counterparts. Their salaries are set by boards filled with their peers who will also benefit by comparing high CEO salaries for their positions. It is a rigged game.

Scaling back the extremes of wealth and poverty, and trying to do more to equalize opportunity seem like worthy societal goals to me. There will still be rich and poor and probably always will be, but helping the poor should be one of the social burdens of wealth. One way to help the poor is through taxation to support a social safety net.

For any Christians out there, what would Jesus do? I doubt he would approach this issue the way blandmind would. I don't believe that he was the son of God, but his radical philosophy about helping the poor seems lost in current versions of Christianity.

john doe · Guru

Perhaps - however we do not need to make it less fair by giving tax breaks to billionaires and screwing those who do not have the capacity to care for themselves. I guess its the new American way to make the system less fair than it ever has been.

blankmind · Senior Member

Are the wealthy wealthy because of their superior character and intelligence? Do you believe that they deserve their wealth because they earned it on their own?

Unless the wealthy stole their money from someone, it doesn't matter why they are wealthy. It doesn't matter whether they deserve it or not, it is theirs.

I suspect that there is always a fair amount of sheer luck involved. Even your genes, good or bad, are often a matter of good or bad fortune for which no one deserves credit or blame.

Life is not fair. You can't make it fair. That's just the way it is.

busdriver11 · Guru

We can fix quite a bit of this by purely simplifying the tax code. You get taxed the same rate whether you actually work and get income for your work, or get taxed on investments. Warren Buffett is welcome to contribute as much as he want to, to the government. Or politic for the tax code to be revised. Why someone should get taxed at the max rate + medicare + social security + state taxes, and get minimally taxed for capital gains, is beyond me. Throwing away all loopholes and extra tax on work and the system is much fairer.

People who believe there must be equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity will never, ever agree. There are many people who rose from absolutely nothing, with little opportunity, to become very successful. And many who came from the maximum opportunity to become complete losers. Allowing opportunity and the chance for anyone to prosper is the best we can do. Unfortunately, with this latest massive recession, I think the gap between the have/have nots is going to become much wider than it has ever been. Those with the optimum education and profession will prosper more than ever. Those who don't, will struggle endlessly.

Bogney · Senior Member

Are the wealthy wealthy because of their superior character and intelligence? Do you believe that they deserve their wealth because they earned it on their own?

I suspect that there is always a fair amount of sheer luck involved. Even your genes, good or bad, are often a matter of good or bad fortune for which no one deserves credit or blame.

Take home income and the amount of wealth or resources at your disposal are the relevant criteria for how much one should pay in taxes, not the amount of taxes one pays. Unless taxes are truly confiscatory, the argument that the rich pay more taxes than the poor, who pay none, is sophistry. I doubt that the rich want to trade places in order to lower their tax burden. They live in a society that permits them to capitalize on their good fortune while providing the benefits of a relatively civilized country. The distribution of wealth in the country has flowed upward toward fewer and fewer people. The tax code squeezes the middle class. The poor are already squeezed whether they pay taxes or not. The rich have the clout to manipulate the tax code to their benefit so that they can hang onto much of their wealth. Warren Buffett has spoken out about the ridiculous skewing of the tax code so that he pays less than those who work for him and who earn far less.

People want to believe that they earned whatever they have through their own effort and strength of character. That is partially true some of the time. Society has set up conditions that allow some people to flourish. Those people should give back more to society than those who benefit less from the current conditions than others.

The rugged individual b.s. Americans like to believe in was fine when there where new frontiers to go to if you did not like the community you were in. There are no more new frontiers in the U.S. We are one big community and there is no room for the old west mentality in communities. The Constitution protects individual rights. Wealthy individuals do not need the further protection of our elected officials and the laws they draft. Our elected officials need to start doing what is best for the community as a whole, not just their wealthiest constituents, which are typically corporations, not people.

-- Edited by Bogney on Friday 8th of April 2011 11:38:13 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"Merely being the largest group of voters does not stop them from being tricked into voting against their interests; and they do so in droves. Of course, the actual goal of these politicians isn't to harm the poor, it's to further enrich the wealthy. That just happens to harm the poor, but they don't give a damn"

No disagreement of the trickery and BS of politicians, but I'm just dying to know how the wealthy being enriched happens to harm the poor. Unless you think the politicians are sticking their hands into the pockets of the poor and giving it to the wealthy (and if you are paying absolutely zero in taxes and only taking from the system, that is impossible to steal from those whom are only taking), as opposed to the wealthy working harder and producing more.

Billy · Senior Member

winchester wrote:
Their goal is to screw the middle class and poor as usual.

The largest groups of voters are the middle class and the poor. The idea that the goal of any politician is to screw them defies reason. It is a ludicrous notion that is devoid of actual thought.

Merely being the largest group of voters does not stop them from being tricked into voting against their interests; and they do so in droves. Of course, the actual goal of these politicians isn't to harm the poor, it's to further enrich the wealthy. That just happens to harm the poor, but they don't give a damn.

-- Edited by Billy on Friday 8th of April 2011 09:17:34 PM

BigG · Guru

When has irrational hyperbole hurt a politician with their constituents?

Not being snarky, I would really like a few examples.

I cannot recall any instances but its late and I am sleepy.

Surely sometime someone in office has put their foot in their mouth far enough to hurt themselves.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Also: WASHINGTON - Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D -DC) was on fire when she spoke to FOX 5 Morning News Thursday about how Washington, D.C. residents are being treated as work to avoid a government shutdown continues.
“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.

Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/politics/delegate-eleanor-holmes-norton-upset-over-treatment-of-dc-during-shutdown-resolution-talks-040711#ixzz1IzdLqBjL

government shutdown = bombing civilians. got it.

soccerguy315 · Guru

sounds like they got a week extension, and will then have the rest of the budget finished next week.

Then we can move to debating raising the debt ceiling and the next budget.

john doe · Guru

You emphasize reason too much. Most people not only do not vote rationally, they also do not behave rationally.

Hindoo · Senior Member

No. The goal isn't to screw the middle class or poor ... at least, not overtly. It's basically a pathetic pissing match between two ideologically rigid groups who don't know how to negotiate and compromise. Pitiful.

winchester · Guru

Their goal is to screw the middle class and poor as usual.

The largest groups of voters are the middle class and the poor. The idea that the goal of any politician is to screw them defies reason. It is a ludicrous notion that is devoid of actual thought.

Billy · Senior Member

john doe wrote:
Their goal is to screw the middle class and poor as usual.

Neither party is good for the poor or working class. The Republicans are just significantly worse for them.

john doe · Guru

Their goal is to screw the middle class and poor as usual.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I have not been following this closely as I have been very sick and busy for the last few weeks. Where have the Reps given in (serious question)? I am NOT in favor of ANY cutting to PP because it has literally saved my life. The people there caught my cancer when no one else did and I think that there are much less important things that need serious cutting before PP. The sense I am getting is that Republicans will not give in until PP is completely cut. Please, someone correct me- this cannot possibly be correct. There is no way that people could want to cut something that millions of men and women rely on as their only source of health care and health prevention or that they would hold up millions of checks for something that is ALREADY federally banned (ie abortion funding).

I am pissed at the Dems for not resolving this last year. But please tell me I am wrong about the Republicans.

Billy · Senior Member

It's ridiculous and both parties hold blame. The Republicans want to make Obama look bad, and the Democrats need to be more willing to cut some funding to Planned Parenthood to keep the country running.

I do take issue with saying that the Democrats did nothing when they were in control, though. They wanted to pass a budget, but the Republicans in the Senate had the filibuster. We need to get rid of the filibuster; what ever happened to majority rules?

And why does Firefox say Obama is not a properly spelled word? You think he would have been added to their dictionary.

john doe · Guru

This is completely the Republicans fault just like the last time. They've allowed the wacko tea partiers to dictate policy. Rest assured that Boehner wanted a deal but thank the nutjobs for preventing it from happening.

pima · Guru

Okay, so yesterday for the 1st time in my life I called all 3 of my MOCs, and didn' end there I also called Reid and Boehner's office.

They got an earful from me.

Bullet and I are taking the 1-2-3 punch.

1. He is a GS, in other words no paycheck come Monday

2. Retirement bennies including VA health care will be an issue.

3. DS is an AFROTC cadet, so his monthly stipend will be like the AD world, cut in 1/2.

Let me make this clear I place a POX on both parties. I also blame Obama. How dare he allow military members serving in wars overseas not get their full pay. Imagine being a soldier in Afghanistan to find out that you will only get 1/2 of your paycheck and you have a spouse plus kids back home.

Most live paycheck to paycheck.

Dems are using planned parenthood as a pawn.

Repubs are using the military as their pawn.

Shame on both.

That being stated, I have to say I am actually angered at the dems. I am a woman, and I believe in planned parenthood, but a budget is a budget, and be it this yr or next yr., this would be an issue. To use women's health when soldiers are fighting in a war and not getting paid is inane to me. The DoD needs to take a fiscal hit, but so does Planned Parenthood. We can't live this way any longer.

Also, people are forgetting this is the budget for actually LY, because it runs 10/1 -9/30. In other words when the Dems were in control.

Both sides are wrong IMPO. They are playing with millions of peoples lives (800K Civilian, and 3+ million military), yet they all came out and said every paid staffer is essential for them. Issa declared 33 staffers were essential. All that I thought when I heard that was YEAH, that is because Issa doesn't know how to answer his phone, or open his mail.

I think both sides are going to take a hit in the long term if they don't get this done by Sunday. Obama needs to now really step up.