question for democrats..

[w8tlftr]

If Jesus existed.He was a socialist.HTH

Wrong.

[garebear]

Wrong.

Right.

[Decker]

I think this summarizes why we will never agree on this.  We have a fundamental disagreement.  It's also the difference between the rhetoric/philosophy of Obama vs. McCain.  What you're saying is you can work hard, make money, but just not too much or the government will take it from you and give it to someone else.  That's not how government should work.

We've had progressive income taxation for almost a 100 years in this country. 

You are proposing a radically different approach with your presumed flat-tax approach to governmental revenue.

Your paraphrase of my view on the matter is wrong.  Here is my view:  under a progressive tax everybody pays the exact same rate of tax at the same bracket.  Warren Buffet pays the same tax rates I do.

 10% on the income between $0 and $11,450

15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00

25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00

28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00

33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00

See?  Buffet pays the same rate I do for every dollar earned up to the 25% bracket limit.  He pays a higher rate of tax on the dollars earned in the 28, 33, and 35% brackets.
 

I'll have to find the quote from Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" book.  It sounds like you fall into that category of people who are jealous of those who make a lot of money.  I don't know if that's true, but that's the impression I get.   

It sounds like you've rationalized your understanding of progressive taxation to the extent that you demonize it and the people supporting it.  You can't make a sound argument based on the merits of the tax itself, instead you impugn the motives and character of your philosophic opponents.

To paraphrase you:  "If one supports the progressive income tax, he/she must be jealous of rich people."

I've pointed out that the PT treats all americans equally and that it is predicated on the basis of ability to pay.

You respond by calling me 'jealous' and restating your irrelevant hatred for redistribution of money by the government.

Do you hate the redistribution of the income tax dollars earned in the 35% bracket or all brackets (which include payments by the working poor to bail out millionaire bankers)?

[shootfighter1]

Good points all around.

One way Ireland helped its economy is to cut capital gains taxes.

Many of us think our government has become too big with too much waste.  I am very hesitant on any policy that increases taxation because first the gov must reduce its waste and its excessive spending.

[shootfighter1]

The country was founded on the notion that the gov works for the people and is accountable to the people.  One of the biggest criticizms of the Bush administration is that he spent our $ like crazy!  We need to send a clear message to washington that is unacceptible.  Thats why I supported Ron Paul.

Something like universal health care, if done right with gov oversight instead of control might work because everyone benefits from it.  However, there are great challenges because the country is so large and we spend so much on expensive proceedures and end of life care.

[Decker]

The country was founded on the notion that the gov works for the people and is accountable to the people.  One of the biggest criticizms of the Bush administration is that he spent our $ like crazy!  We need to send a clear message to washington that is unacceptible.  Thats why I supported Ron Paul.

Something like universal health care, if done right with gov oversight instead of control might work because everyone benefits from it.  However, there are great challenges because the country is so large and we spend so much on expensive proceedures and end of life care.

It would seem that nothing short of a national disaster would force politicians to freeze spending and become responsible.

I still think the problem with spending is something inherent in the political process itself.  Politicians are elected and re-elected b/c they bring home federal spending (for the most part) which means jobs.  People like jobs and vote for candidates that supply them.  It becomes self-perpetuating.

That's a hard cycle to break.

[shootfighter1]

Very true.  Thats why pork projects have to go.  Both Obama and McCain talk about this but it will be incredibly difficult to change the system since pork is an integral part of how bills are eventually agreed on and passed.  If you look at the system, its pathetic pandering.  It would be so much more simple to just vote on a single clear ammendment without all the sub-ammednment pork projects.  Then we can also hold each politician accountable for their votes on 1 particular item. 

I also feel that voting present is not acceptible.  We elect leaders to vote on our behalf.  Make the ammendments clear and about 1 single issue then force everyone to vote.  You can't vote present to avoid sensitive and controversial votes!  (I know its more complicated than that but thats the general idea).  Some of our inherent traditional gov complexities have caused self-inflicted disorder.

[Dos Equis]

We've had progressive income taxation for almost a 100 years in this country. 

You are proposing a radically different approach with your presumed flat-tax approach to governmental revenue.

Your paraphrase of my view on the matter is wrong.  Here is my view:  under a progressive tax everybody pays the exact same rate of tax at the same bracket.  Warren Buffet pays the same tax rates I do.

 10% on the income between $0 and $11,450

15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00

25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00

28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00

33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00

See?  Buffet pays the same rate I do for every dollar earned up to the 25% bracket limit.  He pays a higher rate of tax on the dollars earned in the 28, 33, and 35% brackets.
  It sounds like you've rationalized your understanding of progressive taxation to the extent that you demonize it and the people supporting it.  You can't make a sound argument based on the merits of the tax itself, instead you impugn the motives and character of your philosophic opponents.

To paraphrase you:  "If one supports the progressive income tax, he/she must be jealous of rich people."

I've pointed out that the PT treats all americans equally and that it is predicated on the basis of ability to pay.

You respond by calling me 'jealous' and restating your irrelevant hatred for redistribution of money by the government.

Do you hate the redistribution of the income tax dollars earned in the 35% bracket or all brackets (which include payments by the working poor to bail out millionaire bankers)?

Our tax system does not treat people fairly, because it increases the percentage of tax you pay over some artibtrary number. 

Here is the excerpt from Bork's book that I was talking about:

"Progression today sets in for a married couple at an income of $38,000, and the next higher bracket begins at $91,850.  Those incomes are certainly not large enough to distort the evaluation of inputs between such couples and couples making $25,000.  The difficulty of assessing the ratio between inputs and outputs does not exist.  The ratio assessment problem cannot account for even more dramatic examples of progression.  A family with a $500,000 income pays $154,000 in taxes while a family with an income of $45,000 pays $3,800.  'With eleven times the income, the rich[er] family pays 40 times the taxes.'  Something besides a suspicion of skewed ratios is obviously in play.  Even if a discrepancy in wealth or income were great enough to make ratio assessments difficult, the presumption [James Q.] Wilson describes favors denying that the inputs of the richer person can really be great enough to justify his rewards.  Why that presumption?  Why not a presumption that the richer person has in fact merited his wealth?  The presumption Wilson describes is not explained by the difficulty of comparing inputs and outputs.  If difficulty of assessment does not explain current rates of progression in the tax code, the only remaining explanation seems to be envy."

[Decker]

Our tax system does not treat people fairly, because it increases the percentage of tax you pay over some artibtrary number. 

Here is the excerpt from Bork's book that I was talking about:

"Progression today sets in for a married couple at an income of $38,000, and the next higher bracket begins at $91,850.  Those incomes are certainly not large enough to distort the evaluation of inputs between such couples and couples making $25,000.  The difficulty of assessing the ratio between inputs and outputs does not exist.  The ratio assessment problem cannot account for even more dramatic examples of progression.  A family with a $500,000 income pays $154,000 in taxes while a family with an income of $45,000 pays $3,800.  'With eleven times the income, the rich[er] family pays 40 times the taxes.'  Something besides a suspicion of skewed ratios is obviously in play.  Even if a discrepancy in wealth or income were great enough to make ratio assessments difficult, the presumption [James Q.] Wilson describes favors denying that the inputs of the richer person can really be great enough to justify his rewards.  Why that presumption?  Why not a presumption that the richer person has in fact merited his wealth?  The presumption Wilson describes is not explained by the difficulty of comparing inputs and outputs.  If difficulty of assessment does not explain current rates of progression in the tax code, the only remaining explanation seems to be envy."

And what a fine quote that is.  Robert Bork has an inflated sense of autocratic importance to guide his extreme suppressive rightwing beliefs.  That's why he was shitcanned as a Sup. Ct. Justice nominee and rightly so. 

Remember in that same book Bork opined that the US's leftwing and it's terrible tool of control (political correctness) portended a new dark ages where only pockets of civilization would exist protecting true scholarship.  Of course those pockets would be populated with quasi-fascist extremists like Bork, himself.

This little snippet looks like typical Bork nonsense.  Notice how he mentions nominal tax rates and is silent about effective tax rates?  This jack-ass never heard of deferred comp, exemptions or deductions. 

Take a look at the history of marginal tax rates in this country:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

The top marginal rate that has Bork crying like a pussy about envy is roughly 1/3 of the rate in the 1940s and 1950s (a period of incredible growth with a high standard of living).

Oh yeah, look at how he states your jealousy argument...an assumption totally pulled out of his ass.  Forget ability to pay or the like....it's envy.

[w8tlftr]

Right.

Please show proof of your claim.

Show me how Jesus endorsed government redistribution of wealth, where the bible endorses a punitive progressive tax system, or a government nanny state over individual liberty.

[tu_holmes]

Wrong.

Didn't the Bible quote Jesus as saying "give to every one who begs from you"

[w8tlftr]

I do believe the Bible quote jesus as saying "
Didn't the Bible quote Jesus as saying "give to every one who begs from you"


??

There is a big difference between you and I giving to help our brothers in need and the government acting as the middle man doing it for us.

Jesus didn't say give your coins to Ceasar and let him decide which beggar to give to.

[24KT]

There is a big difference between you and I giving to help our brothers in need and the government acting as the middle man doing it for us.

Jesus didn't say give your coins to Ceasar and let him decide which beggar to give to.

Actually he did. Wasn't Jesus asked about Taxes? Didn't he ask him to look at the coin and see whose face was on it, then he said give unto Caesar that which is his, ...and give  unto God that which is his? Jesus supported taxes. 

[w8tlftr]

Actually he did. Wasn't Jesus asked about Taxes? Didn't he ask him to look at the coin and see whose face was on it, then he said give unto Caesar that which is his, ...and give  unto God that which is his? Jesus supported taxes. 

totally taken out of context.

read it again and get back to us.

and the discussion wasn't about taxes (which I support btw) it's about whether he'd be a socialist.... which is actually a stupid argument... how'd i get sucked into this?