Poor People Don't Pay Enough Taxes - Senator Hatch

[Heywood]

I don't like the fact that half of us pay taxes on our Form 1040, and many of the other half receive refundable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, money back that was never paid in to start with, using the same Form 1040.

The 1040 should be used to pay taxes, not used as a welfare form.

In other words, don't ask us to pay taxes because you don't have enough money, and then you start giving away money to others even faster than we can pay it in......

[efirkey]

Would any of the rich people who do pay a lot in taxes like to trade places with the poor who don't?  And not everyone who is poor deserves to be poor like not everyone who is rich deserves to be rich.  A lot of the time your station in life is determined at birth.

[Coach is Back!]

children?

Our children will be paying out the ass with this shitheads spending.

[The Ugly]

Would any of the rich people who do pay a lot in taxes like to trade places with the poor who don't? 

Not a valid argument. It doesn't address fairness.

[Mr. Magoo]

Would any of the rich people who do pay a lot in taxes like to trade places with the poor who don't?  And not everyone who is poor deserves to be poor like not everyone who is rich deserves to be rich.  A lot of the time your station in life is determined at birth.

I agree. I don't think that point has been made explicitly enough in this thread. I think the claim that "I have full rights to my labor because I am fully responsible for that labor" is simply wrong. I'm sorry but the wealthy undertook their position under the knowledge that part of what they make will be given back to those who did not luck out in the natural lottery. Their skills and abilities are not self-caused. They did not have any more "choice" over having the cognitive ability to work on wall street than they did over their race. The only inequality in a society should be because of individual choice and preference.


http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=388223.msg5447974#msg5447974

[efirkey]

Not a valid argument. It doesn't address fairness.

Fair will never happen...someone will always get the crappy end of the situation.  And since the poor outnumber the rich 100 to 1 they have decided keep the poorer satisfied.

[The Ugly]

Their skills and abilities are not self-caused. They did not have any more "choice" over having the cognitive ability to work on wall street than they did over their race.

Nonsense. You can't possibly defend this.

[efirkey]

I agree. I don't think that point has been made explicitly enough in this thread. I think the claim that "I have full rights to my labor because I am fully responsible for that labor" is simply wrong. I'm sorry but the wealthy undertook their position under the knowledge that part of what they make will be given back to those who did not luck out in the natural lottery. Their skills and abilities are not self-caused. They did not have any more "choice" over having the cognitive ability to work on wall street than they did over their race. The only inequality in a society should be because of individual choice and preference.


http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=388223.msg5447974#msg5447974

There was a time when you could work hard and improve your life and your families life.  Those days are gone.  Benefits are going away, retirement packages are going away, american jobs are going away.  Even a college degree doesn't guarantee you will have a decent job.

[tonymctones]

The top brackets do not shoulder the vast majority of the tax burden in relation to their income. Those that receive gov assistance do not receive more than they pay in. More than half of the people on welfare work 2 or more jobs. Your conclusion that the rich are doing enough and the poor have it easy is not valid.

how much do the top 1% of income earners make in the US magoo?

I dont think anybody is saying the poor have it easy but they do not pull their own weight.

You want to talk about fairness thats fine but do you really feel its fair to have someone else pay for others?

[Mr. Magoo]

Nonsense. You can't possibly defend this.

yes I can. Send me a PM if you want some reading material. Some people lucked out in the natural lottery and some did not. There is a lot in life that is not up to "choice". Take the Wilt Chamberlain example in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick claims that since people are willing to pay to see Wilt play, then Wilt has a full right to that money, and to tax him for that money is nothing short of taking away his labor, and when you take away his labor that is slavery. This is the common libertarian thought. But Wilt became a basketball player under the knowledge of an already set up distributive scheme. He knew well ahead of time that his money would be taken away via tax. Also, Wilt only happened to luck out in the natural lottery to be a gifted basketball player. Whatever was in his brain and/or body that made him work hard and allowed him to improve was not up to him. Plus, Wilt happened to luck out by living in a time and place in history that values basketball skills. This is a typical reply to the typical libertarian "I deserve all the fruits of my labor" argument.

That was an example of receiving full benefits of a skill. If you want to see how brain ability is not really up to oneself, see my previous post when I take about how intelligence is largely determined by age 5.

[tonymctones]

yes I can. Send me a PM if you want some reading material. Some people lucked out in the natural lottery and some did not. There is a lot in life that is not up to "choice". Take the Wilt Chamberlain example in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick claims that since people are willing to pay to see Wilt play, then Wilt has a full right to that money, and to tax him for that money is nothing short of taking away his labor, and when you take away his labor that is slavery. This is the common libertarian thought. But Wilt became a basketball player under the knowledge of an already set up distributive scheme. He knew well ahead of time that his money would be taken away via tax. Also, Wilt only happened to luck out in the natural lottery to be a gifted basketball player. Whatever was in his brain and/or body that made him work hard and allowed him to improve was not up to him. Plus, Wilt happened to luck out by living in a time and place in history that values basketball skills. This is a typical reply to the typical libertarian "I deserve all the fruits of my labor" argument.

That was an example of receiving full benefits of a skill. If you want to see how brain ability is not really up to oneself, see my previous post when I take about how intelligence is largely determined by age 5.

LOL so youre theory is that those who dont have skills that are marketable or natural ability have a right to have those that do care for them?

[The Abdominal Snoman]

50% of this nation have ZERO income tax liability. They pay "Taxes" and then get most if not all of it back with the refund or the EITC. Many get more back than they paid in through direct welfare, assistance, deductions, food stamps and on and on. 64% of Americans are actually getting some sort of transfer payments from the government.

In affect, the poor don't pay any income taxes. Most of the tax burden falls on the top 15%

The poor also have no savings/401k ect. No assets to leave to their children. Which means every single penny they make, goes directly back into the system almost instantly.

[ManBearPig...]

mr. magoo, what have you done with your life to try to get ahead?

what do you do for a living?

do you have any dependents?

[tonymctones]

The poor also have no savings/401k ect. No assets to leave to their children. Which means every single penny they make, goes directly back into the system almost instantly.

LMAO it all gets back into the system no matter what...

what do you think banks do with the money that is deposited in them?

what do you think companies do with money generated from IPO's or other issuances?

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Nonsense. You can't possibly defend this.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Mr. Magoo]

LOL so youre theory is that those who dont have skills that are marketable or natural ability have a right to have those that do care for them?

It's not a "right". Don't get into the whole issue of "rights", it's usually a misguided, overly emotional conversation that automatically becomes locked.

I'm saying that the only inequality that we should find morally permissible is inequality resulting from individual choice and preference. One ideal example would be having all jobs pay the same amount of money per hour but workers could choose how many hours to work. This would result in inequality due to individual preference and choice and the end distribution would be just and fair. Keep in mind this is in theory, I'm not saying we should start tomorrow, it would not work. If you want literature behind this, send me a PM.

The Nozick example of Wilt keeping the fruit of his labor is only applicable as a historical theory that derives from an original just distribution (such as an equal distribution). Most libertarians who cite Nozick ignore this point. If the original distribution is not a just (such as an equal distribution) and the distribution in America right now is not, then taxation should be used for distributive justice. Nozick, the father of libertarians, admits this.

Maybe this makes sense.

[tonymctones]

It's not a "right". Don't get into the whole issue of "rights", it's usually a misguided, overly emotional conversation that automatically becomes locked.

I'm saying that the only inequality that we should find morally permissible is inequality resulting from individual choice and preference. One ideal example would be having all jobs pay the same amount of money per hour but workers could choose how many hours to work. This would result in inequality due to individual preference and choice and the end distribution would be just and fair. Keep in mind this is in theory, I'm not saying we should start tomorrow, it would not work. If you want literature behind this, send me a PM.

The Nozick example of Wilt keeping the fruit of his labor is only applicable as a historical theory that derives from an original just distribution (such as an equal distribution). Most libertarians who cite Nozick ignore this point. If the original distribution is not a just (such as an equal distribution) and the distribution in America right now is not, then taxation should be used for distributive justice. Nozick, the father of libertarians, admits this.

Maybe this makes sense.

LMFAO so quality of work and type of work wouldnt matter in this utopia of yours?

hahahah dude I knew you were out there but I didnt know how far out you were LMFAO

[The Ugly]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

Complete bullshit. We're all programmed to choose a certain way? I steal because I've always been a thief, and I have no choice but to continue stealing in the future. I am a fucking robot.

Complete bullshit.

[Mr. Magoo]

Complete bullshit. We're all programmed to choose a certain way? I steal because I've always been a thief, and I have no choice but to continue stealing in the future. I am a fucking robot.

Complete bullshit.

those who have a gene in their brain called monoamine oxidase A are 600 times more likely to commit a violent act.

Still think committing violent acts is purely a free will activity?

[The Ugly]

Still think committing violent acts is purely a free will activity?

Yep.

And people who drink too much have a gene that forces their mouth to a bottle, right?

[Mr. Magoo]

LMFAO so quality of work and type of work wouldnt matter in this utopia of yours?

hahahah dude I knew you were out there but I didnt know how far out you were LMFAO

the quality of work would be best suited to skill and where one's preferences directed them. For example, the lower class children whose parents did not read to them much (thereby lowering their IQ in relation to other children and hurting their chances at getting good paying jobs) would not be punished in society due to an action beyond their control. Just like the higher class children whose parents could afford to have people read to their child should not be rewarded in society due to an action beyond their control.

[tonymctones]

the quality of work would be best suited to skill and where one's preferences directed them. For example, the lower class children whose parents did not read to them much (thereby lowering their IQ in relation to other children and hurting their chances at getting good paying jobs) would not be punished in society due to an action beyond their control. Just like the higher class children whose parents could afford to have people read to their child should not be rewarded in society due to an action beyond their control.

LOL so quality of work wouldnt matter then and type of work wouldnt matter?

LOL life isnt fair, who ever told you it was lied to your idealistic ass...

plenty of ppl have it a lot better than I did growing up bro, I busted my ass went to school got a degree, got a semi decent job and am now paying my way through an MBA program that I attend at night...

dont sit here and tell me that I should get paid the same as others who had the same opportunities i did and didnt do shit about it.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Yep.

And people who drink too much have a gene that forces their mouth to a bottle, right?

Do you think people who are genetically predisposed to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder have the same ability to be a successful business person then someone who doesn't?

[tonymctones]

what would be the incentive to better yourself? or take risks in starting a business in your utopia magoo?

[The Ugly]

Do you think people who are genetically predisposed to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder have the same ability to be a successful business person then someone who doesn't?

Probably not. So?

Some people are fucked - what's that got to do with anything?