How Voters Think

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does the billionare use the roads, the schools, or the social programs any more than the average joe? No. So why should he have to pay for them?!?

I would just suggest that you and Scott Campbell have very extreme views.

I imagine 90% of people in the country accept that taxes should be based on a percentage of income. And most wealthy people are not unhappy about paying their taxes on this basis.

[MJZiggy]

Partial, two questions,

1. What's the billionaire spending his nine hundred million dollars (that he has after taxes, and before tax shelters, loopholes, etc.) on that he will miss that last hundred million?

2. How does Uncle Sam know when you've reached your $24K limit for the flat tax so it can now start taxing your expenditures?

[Partial]

Why is it that those who are successful are always asked to foot the bill for societies shortcomings?

What in hell are you talking about? The wealthy are paying a far lower percentage of their income on taxes than working people, no honest person can dispute this.

The government doesn't knock on rich people's doors when it gets in trouble, it borrows.

Again, your opinions are bases on theories, dogma, not rooted in any reality.

Yes, % they are paying less. But 1% of 1 billion is a hell of a lot more than 100% of 50,000.

[Partial]

Does the billionare use the roads, the schools, or the social programs any more than the average joe? No. So why should he have to pay for them?!?

I would just suggest that you and Scott Campbell have very extreme views.

I imagine 90% of people in the country accept that taxes should be based on a percentage of income. And most wealthy people are not unhappy about paying their taxes on this basis.

Thats because the really, really rich people can afford not to pay taxes. The people with the 100-300k income are not at that level and foot the bill for just about everything.

[Partial]

Partial, two questions,

1. What's the billionaire spending his nine hundred million dollars (that he has after taxes, and before tax shelters, loopholes, etc.) on that he will miss that last hundred million?

2. How does Uncle Sam know when you've reached your $24K limit for the flat tax so it can now start taxing your expenditures?

1. It doesn't matter. Maybe setting up another enterprise to provide jobs? Maybe hiring a playboy bunny wait staff. I have no idea. The point is its a lot of money and he/she should be able to do with it what they want. They shouldn't have to pay exponentially more for the same services.

2. Nevermind, I am an idiot. Every month you get a check from uncle sam. Everything that you buy has the 30% tax on it.

[MJZiggy]

Oh wait, I have one more question: If you want every male to be required to do military service for two years, and we're in peacetime which means that we need less of an army (I'm speaking hypothetically, no need to remind me about Iraq, thanks), how are you paying for your overly bloated military force while still cutting the share of the taxes that the extremely wealthy are forced to pay because now they don't have to pay any more than some dude making $50K a year?

[Partial]

Oh wait, I have one more question: If you want every male to be required to do military service for two years, and we're in peacetime which means that we need less of an army (I'm speaking hypothetically, no need to remind me about Iraq, thanks), how are you paying for your overly bloated military force while still cutting the share of the taxes that the extremely wealthy are forced to pay because now they don't have to pay any more than some dude making $50K a year?

Volunteer.

[MJZiggy]

Every month you get a check from uncle sam. Everything that you buy has the 30% tax on it.

Huh? Uncle Sam is sending a check to every person in the country every month? And everything you buy has a 30% tax?

[the_idle_threat]

Some folks talk about getting rid of social programs for the poor in order to cause bottoming out so that the poor are motivated to better themselves through hard work. That's an outstanding theory, but it ignores the other option on the table: crime.

If society allows people to be beaten down by life to the point where the survival instinct kicks in, some of these "have-nots" will surely turn to hard work, and become the subject of a schmaltzy movie like "The Pursuit of Happyness." But those who don't have the intellectual gifts of the guy in that movie, or (supposedly) our very own JustinHarrell/GregJennings/NickCollins/etc., might find it much easier to just take what they need and want from the "haves."

Robin Hood is a folk hero---do you know what he was all about? Robbing the rich to give to the poor?

Now somebody like Scott might argue that Robin Hood is alive and well and he's dressed in Red White and Blue, pointing at you. But Uncle Sam doesn't stick a pistol in your face when he takes a share, and he doesn't pull the trigger because you looked him in the eye.

Income redistribution is inevitable. If we get rid of the governmental method, we'll get a whole lot more of the "do-it-yourself" method.

And when those of you who made the "right" decisions and got to keep "your" money (never mind the government-controlled financial and regulatory structure that allowed you to get where you are) are looking down the barrel of a gun or reading a ransom note, you might realize then---perhaps too late---that the governmental method is superior to the "do-it-yourself" method of income redistribution after all.

Maybe this would not be the case in a perfect world, but a perfect world this is not.

[RashanGary]

This country had a flat (10% I believe) tax leading up to the great depression. There were a few extremely wealthy people who owned everything. Their wealth steam rolled. The rest borrowed and eventually the bubble popped.


I thought this person did a decent, short enough, readable rendition of the events leading up to the great depression.

http://ttokarnak.home.att.net/Depression.html

Clearly the banking and buisness practices were bad, but the low tax on the wealthy lead to the elite steam rolling all of America's wealth. The working class could always borrow and borrow they did. Sounds great, right. Just as a Regan Conservative, the more the rich have, the more they can borrow to the ambitious, right. Well, what ends up happening in these situations is an income gap forms. Eventually almost everything is owned and controlled by the elite few.

I have no problem with wealth. In fact, I hope to do alright over the course of my life but there are points where it starts getting out of hand. There has to be a way to tax the highest level more than the lower levels because wealth begets wealth in a way that has nothing to do with personal choices, abiliyt or ambition at some point. AT some point it becomes domination through power and at that point none of us really stand a chance.

It sounds wonderfull, but this country had a flat 10% tax at one time. It blew up in everyones face.

I think Warren Buffet has the right idea. You don't kill the upper-middle, you set up a system where they can jump into the elite and a system where the elite have to be smart to maintain and grow their wealth. A system where the cream rises to the top, not where your grandpa rose and you ride his coattails at the top.

[Partial]

Every month you get a check from uncle sam. Everything that you buy has the 30% tax on it.

Huh? Uncle Sam is sending a check to every person in the country every month? And everything you buy has a 30% tax?

Yep. You get a check every month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FTRebate.png

[Partial]

Snip

Crime is already terrible. I don't foresee it having much affect.

[the_idle_threat]

Snip

Crime is already terrible. I don't foresee it having much affect.

You honestly believe it cannot get worse? To put it kindly, you're very naive.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I know I'm lucky. I am saying these people should and do know better than their actions reflect. They like their lifestyle though and continue to live it. That won't ever change.

By what example did they learn (like you had the example to learn from) better than their actions reflect? We learn by example. Who taught these kids the right way to live and manage money and take care of themselves? Should is nice, but you have to work with the world the way it is, not the way it should be, and by giving up on these people you still haven't solved your panhandling problem, and by the way, have you ever noticed how many of them are vets?

MJZiggy,

There really isn't point in discussing this. Partial is a college student who lives at home. He has a safety net, yet doesn't even realize it.

Even after he leaves home he still will have that net, and as i'm willing to bet his folks would let him live at their house if things got rough.

He knows nothing of being completely self sufficient. He knows nothing about being poor...he thinks because he has no money or very little in college that he is poor.

The fact that he considers a family to have been the most succesfull because they produced middle class earners..(java, pharm, etc..none are even in the same stratosphere as doctors, attorneys, directors at companies, etc.) should tell you all you need to know about him.

That, and that he started college at platteville. He obviously didn't apply himself in high school or just isn't bright enough to have gone to a good school...hurts, partial, doesn't it when someone judges you and finds you lacking.

Ha. Rip on Platteville. That's funny because I see Platteville engineers placing better with higher salaries than the pompass asses of Madison. That's true I didn't apply myself in high school, not that I need to explain myself to some douche bag who thinks he is the shit because he went to madison...

As for what I referenced as a family, the oldest one is 25 and they are pretty damn successful yet came from a very poor family. All that is implying is that lower income working class families who want to be successful can be, it all comes down to attitude.

What exactly do you do for a living Tyrone? I'd be curious to know. Do you toot your horn about being a badger to your co-workers in salary inflated Phoenix?

Your anecdotal evidence is just that. If you think UW graduates don't start with higher salaries and better companies than you are just kidding yourself.

Platteville doesn't even use the same textbooks.

You again, prove my point. I don't think i'm the shit because i went to madison. My point is that every has different standards to judge. But, by any objective standard, going to madison is better than going to plattville..academically speaking.

Successful: Again you miss the point. That is YOUR definition of success. Others wouldn't feel that way. My viewpoint is not relevant. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

What does tyrone do for a living. Not relevant. Not here to discuss my success or failures.

No, i don't toot my horn...pretty much ever. I don't feel the need. And, if you think Phx is salary inflated, you just show your ignorance of the market. Salaries are lower here than other places.

You should just shut your mouth and learn. You are a college student...you haven't learned very much in life. To quote the great Earl Weaver, "it is what you learn after you know it all that counts."

Consider that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

you wandered into creepy territory here, Tyrone. You think you know somebody because their family works at certain professions? Down, boy.

And BTW, Platteville is a good engineering school, my nephew went there and he was a top notch student, and I know a professor who taught there. I'm not sure if it attracts people who couldn't get into bigger schools, or people who are more comfortable in a small school environment.

Ding ding ding. Madison's engineering program is the 4th best in the state if you include Michigan tech. Laughable One could argue Marquette is better as well

I know 4 or 5 good students from Madison that went on to take 40k engineering jobs out of school, where you Platteville graduate was taking 50-60k for a job in Iowa or Illinois in a town with lower cost of living

Wow. You show a marked lack of knowledge regarding economics. Of course Iowa or lower cost cities pay more...how else are they going to attract talent. For the most part, people don't wanna live in rural areas.

It is simple supply and demand.