Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Starship is agreeing on many things with us about closing loopholes and letting more poor people not pay taxes. But he is disagreeing over how tax should be for those paying.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI want to have the government stop raising the rate on me after a certain point; said certain point being well beyond any effect to the poorer citizens, who I don't think should be paying taxes at all.
It's like you guys want this open ended "You keep making more and we'll keep raising our cut" and that shit doesn't fly with people who don't view their income as the sole discretion of the government.
Jack up the tax rate to 40% when I make $10million but don't jack it up to 60% when I make $100 million and then justify it with "Well, it's not really your money." Like hell it isn't.
It was an honorDammit, I turn my back for a second and this thread is arguing about anarchism again. Please, someone reboot the threads that discuss the viability of anarchism. They're easy to find with the "search forum titles" field up there at the top of the screen. Honest.
@ Starship:
But we're not justifying it with "it's not really your money". You're making that shit up on your own. We're justifying it with "we're going to use it build more trains and buses and schools in the inner city". (Ideally this is the sort of thing I would be directing the money towards. I realize that in real life it's getting towards boondoggles, but that is also an issue that needs to be corrected.)
We're also using "if we direct it towards the poor they'll spend that money on whatever you're producing, so it will also help your profits and possibly making you richer in the long run."
I'd suggest you reread the last few posts Ace. "Well, you used more resources than a poorer guy", "You didn't make it on your own", "All you're going to do with it is just let it accumulate."
All that stems from some ass-backwards belief I don't have the right to spend the money I earn as I see fit.
Which is bullshit.
It was an honorWhat's basically happening now with the rich is that they are dumping their money in the banks to gain interest, using loopholes to avoid having to pay most of the taxes and so on. They aren't doing anything with it. Yes, the concept of having a lot of money is nice, but eventually you'll just try to keep it because 'it's yours'. It's like those people who go around saying that they had absolutely no help in earning their money.
Basically, if you can pay a big tax without it impacting your quality of life or what you actually need to save, then you probably weren't going to use it anyway, so why get so worked up about it?
@Starship: I can justify it with I don't need it.
If people have a mansion already and aren't buying a second home now why is it a big deal that they be made to pay more?
Especially if were using it for stuff like this.
edited 4th Apr '13 2:26:20 PM by Wildcard
No, I'd jack it up to 90% (marginal tax rate) if you made $100 million because you can afford it and as an obscenely wealthy individual, you have a responsibility to society. And in that case, you're getting taxed 90% only on the money past say, $80 million, not on all $100 million. And yes, we've had a top marginal tax rate of 90% in the past, so it would not be unprecedented.
The top marginal tax rate is about 40% already and that takes effect at ~$400,000 income (depending on how you file and so on). Raise the top marginal tax rate to about 65% and you're getting somewhere.
Here's a summary of US income tax rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates_for_2013
This is not covering the government's bills terribly well, in part due to wasteful spending (see the DOD losing $900 million in an accounting error), and in part due to the fact that, since the 1970s, we've slashed income taxes, particularly on the wealthiest members of society.
That's not how I'm justifying it. I'm justifying it by pointing out that we need to run our government, we need more money then we have to run our government, we need to get it from somewhere and taking it from you will hurt a lot less then taking it from elsewhere. If I had my way the the government would own lots of subsidiaries that produce profit that is used to run the government. The government would own factories and other things that would channel their profits into running the government, meaning lower taxes for everyone.
edited 4th Apr '13 2:29:48 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSee, now this I can work with.
And who, exactly, are you to determine I'm "obscenely" wealthy??
edited 4th Apr '13 2:31:00 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYou realise that's Communism right? Like actual honest to god Communism with a big C.
Edit: I think I just got Starship to support Communism, that puts me at two miracles right? Am I a saint now or do I need one more?
edited 4th Apr '13 2:31:06 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOne, I never said anyone used more resources than anyone, (I never said anything about individual use of resources at all.) Two, when I say there's just a point at which it accumulates I mean there's a point at which taxing money isn't even going to hurt you because there will still be plenty accumulating. (As in i DON'T want to take all your money from you, but you're at a level where taking a little more won't hurt you at all.)
Three, NO ONE GETS ANYWHERE ON YOUR OWN. Every single one of us is helped more by other people than we know, and certainly a great many of us are helped by government services. In your case, apparently more than you are willing to admit. In the case of conservative policies, DEFINITELY more than they want to admit.
Basically, all those answers are bullshit. The point is, taxes go to pay for things that benefit every single one of us, and the rich can put on their big boy pants and pay a little more without suffering one single bit. I'm not saying what you can and can't do AFTER TAXES, I'm saying the rich need to pay more because to do otherwise shifts an unfair burden to the poor and middle class, which is unsustainable in the long term and screws us all over. You want your after tax income to sit in the bank and accumulate? That's fine, do that. You want a build an indoor basketball court in your house? Fine, do that. Want to throw it all out the window? Well, that would probably cause a riot, so if you feel like dealing with that have at it. You can do whatever you want. But wanting the rich to pay higher taxes isn't dictating what you get to do with discretionary funds.
NONE OF US ARE DEMONIZING THE RICH YOU ARE MAKING THAT UP ON YOUR OWN. We are simply saying the rich can afford to give up a little more to help themselves and everyone else. Except, perhaps, Deathpigeon but he thinks we should do away with money entirely and thinks that would solve the problem of greed.
edited 4th Apr '13 2:34:44 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
![]()
That's why you put me in charge.
Or realistically, you get as close as possible to Communism without compromising on other things (like human rights and the ability for people to gain wealth).
![]()
I'm pretty sure national industry is considered Communism, someone want to make a ruling on this?
edited 4th Apr '13 2:35:14 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Silsaw
Only dead people can be Saints.
House bill would allow private-sector workers to trade overtime for time off
Okay, I'll repeat, if I had my way only the well off would pay taxes, the poor never would. And I have no problem with me paying more taxes when I make $10 million than I did making $500,000.
Where I get pissed off is when instead of just taxing me the same percentage from $10 million to $100 million you jack it up to 60%.
If you left it at, say, 30% you'd still get more money as I made more money. I don't know why this is so hard to get across.
It was an honorPlease please please read my posts on this page and the last about how it's a mathematical problem and not an ideological one.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
![]()
Because we need more money then we'd get that way. that's why we wana jack ti up to 60%, cus we need more money then we're getting and if we're not taxing the poor then we're gona need even more.
edited 4th Apr '13 2:42:35 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMy confusion is this, Starship: why do you want to stop taxing progressively for the very wealthy, when you agree with a progressive scheme in general? Why wouldn't the progressive scheme continue, wouldn't that be fairest?
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

@ Deathpigeon: So a circle jerk that ends in a huge bloody fight, is what I'm getting from that. Because seriously, the first thing a person on power does is make sure they can't be hurt. Plus, and Tomu has said this many times, advantage of first adopters. They will always have the advantage of having established access to tools and resources, therefor putting anyone who comes after them at a disadvantage.
Seriously, anarchy only works if people have their sense of ambition removed entirely. And even then that doesn't account for people who just like being assholes.
edited 4th Apr '13 2:15:49 PM by AceofSpades