"Tax the rich!" - The dumbest slogan ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.

---

Stealing? Damn, that means I must be a thief, or accessory to theft, as I'm studying across the country, going through college thanks to the Scholarship I get from the State, without which I could never study (Because I am in fact poor). I am most thankful to our thieving overlords, without whose thefts I could have never gotten the opportunities I have today.

Am I the only one caught off-guard by HoreTore being the one to start this thread? I kept waiting for the punch-line, but it never arrived...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

No not selfish. Realistic.

If someone's worth is $7,000 a week then it's right he/she gets the correct renumeration. I have no problem with that. One of the faults of communism is that it takes away incentive. Why get a job as, say, an oil tanker captain and get paid the same as the bog cleaner?

As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.

Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:

---

I was not arguing he should be paid less. I was simply annoyed at the sudden defiance towards taxes for having a man's standard of living not even drop.

The authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. We have all consented to be ruled by the government in charge of the region in which we reside through a social contract. Therefor, the actions of the government cannot be called stealing. If you feel you can not consent to the government due to its actions, then renounce your citizenship and reside under another government.

Comparing Al Capone to the government is absolutely nonsensical. AL Capone did not have the consent of the American people to rule over them and do as he judged should be done, the government does. Capone's actions violated people's rights since they did not consent to his actions whereas they have with the government. Everyone signs a social contract toward the government, Al Capone didn't have anyone sign any such contract to give him authority over their rights.

Money is power. Power corrupts. The more money you have, the stronger the corruption presses against you.

I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.

---

You signed it when you decided to live within the confines of the governments region of control and participate in government affairs by voting. Try to convince others that you feel there should be less taxation and change the government or move. Don't complain that the government is Al Capone because you are too lazy to pick up and move and because the rest of the country disagrees with you on the amount of taxation.

It's just like Republicans saying that Obama is a tyrant simply because he won the election and is now implementing policies that Republicans disagree with.

Ironically, it seems that it is only those at the top who finally break through the mentality of constantly "needing/hording more" money since you can't really admit to yourself that you need more money when you only have less then 1 or 2 other people in the entire world. See Bill Gates with his foundation, and more importantly Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies.

This is why (Warren Buffet) is giving it all away in his own words:
https://i.imgur.com/xuMqS.png

EDIT: Really, really related. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...opy-challenge/

EDIT: ****, I made a really bad typo. Sasaki quoted me before I fixed the typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ironically, it seems that it is only those at the top who finally break through the mentality of constantly "needing/hording more" money since you can't really admit to yourself that you need more money when you only have more then 1 or 2 other people in the entire world. See Bill Gates with his foundation, and more importantly Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies.

This is why (Warren Buffet) is giving it all away in his own words:
https://i.imgur.com/xuMqS.png

EDIT: Really, really related. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...opy-challenge/

---

Perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You signed it when you decided to live within the confines of the governments region of control and participate in government affairs by voting. Try to convince others that you feel there should be less taxation and change the government or move. Don't complain that the government is Al Capone because you are too lazy to pick up and move and because the rest of the country disagrees with you on the amount of taxation.

It's just like Republicans saying that Obama is a tyrant simply because he won the election and is now implementing policies that Republicans disagree with.

---

Really? There was I thinking that a contract had to be entered into voluntarily for it to have force under the law. Oh and it has to be witnessed. So just to be clear here. Because I didn't sign this contract, it was foisted on me, presumably as a child, which in itself makes it illegal as a minor cannot sign contracts, I'm still bound by it.

Novel thinking to say the least. :dizzy2:

You got me banged to rights on the lazy bit though. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Really? There was I thinking that a contract had to be entered into voluntarily for it to have force under the law. Oh and it has to be witnessed. So just to be clear here. Because I didn't sign this contract, it was foisted on me, presumably as a child, which in itself makes it illegal as a minor cannot sign contracts, I'm still bound by it.

Novel thinking to say the least. :dizzy2:

You got me banged to rights on the lazy bit though. :laugh4:

---

You have entered it voluntarily. I could type a long paragraph, but this sentence from wikipedia's article on Social Contract will do:
To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon"

You have throughout your life willingly agreed to sacrifice ultimate freedom (including the ability to kill another) in order to gain civil rights (the right to not be murdered) under the authority of the government. You consented to the social contract since you have made use of the government's benefits toward you and have followed societies laws. You accepted responsibility.

The real question here is who is using horetores computer?

200000 isn't as much as you think it is beskar.

My monies on Dev Dave. :laugh4:

Hmmm, if it really isn't HoreTore using his account then I hope he forgives me for calling him a weak fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will.

---

This is more properly known as "going Galt". It has never happened here and no evidence exists to suggest that it ever will. Hope that helps.

Also I'm throwing my hat in with the "this can't be HoreTore" crowd.

fake edit: Oh come on. I know HoreTore understands progressive taxation and how intrinsic it is to western society. This can't be him.

I have firmly decided, that the post is HoreTore and that tomorrow he will ridicule us all for believing his complete 180 turn on his beliefs. Calling his trolling out now so I don't have to count myself as a victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.

---

You're British, a subject to a crown, nobody asked nor needed you to sign anything. :smash:



Which I guess at least makes for a good excuse, unlike other countries where supposedly the people really do are in charge...

Actually since 1983 I've also been a citizen. No one ask me to sign owt then either. :book:

As for being a subject, never had a problem with it. We tolerate Madge, no more no less. Beats having a Bush/Sarkozy/Hitler in charge.

Yeh got a Godwin in. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:

No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:

---

I've always felt this way, IA ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Eh? According to the Socialist doctrine, the State's objective is to equalize the wealth in its society, and that means narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. If everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate, the rich keep getting richer, while the poorer keep getting poorer in comparison. The classes purchase power therefore begins differing rapidly, and begins widening. A higher tax isn't neither unjust nor should be seen as a punishment (as you still make more money than poorer people regardless), and using exactly that same analogy would also show why the VAT is an unjust taxing policy. A State is about helping its citizens, and since the poorer don't have the means to earn what the rich can, then the State must tax the rich and use the funds as social transfers to level the field as best as possible for all its citizens. Anything otherwise is inherently unjust.

---

I am all in favour of wealth redistribution. I do not, however, believe that a simple tax is the best way of achieving that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

You're saying someone who lives on a minimum wage should give the same percentage of their earnings (Which are scarce and can barely pay all bills - if all of them - and still get through the month being fed properly and buying all the medicine they should, etc?) that of a rich banker who has absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying that amount of taxes or double that, and still go through the month paying for every luxury it wants and still have money to save? That system is inherently unjust.

---

Try reading what I've been saying one more time.

I've said that everyone making the average wage and more should pay the same. Those making below that should pay less. Because let's face it, once you're making the average wage, you're perfectly capable of paying your bills.



Just to clarify:

I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)

---

Meh, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on that. Time will do that for me ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Meh, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on that. Time will do that for me ~:)

---

How so? I'm already of the class I'm proposing to burn... And I'm very happy to pay my taxes, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of paying more in taxes.

It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves. There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.

Fair enough. Luckily I have skills that are wanted the world over. Of course money is not the only factor, but it forms part of the "quality of life" equation. If the soaking of my wage becomes too detrimental then I'll review whether relocating is worth it. A flat tax would make this far more equitable however.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Just to clarify:

I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)

---

So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:

---

Why are so many people equating high taxation with flat taxation? Saying that punitive taxation is counter productive is not the same as saying that progressive taxes are bad/good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.

---

Nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How so?

---

Oh, receiving an "invitation" to pay your property tax right after you just bought furniture for the room of the soon expected firstborn, paid your car insurance, vehicle tax and the monthly electricity, gas and telephone bills, kinda helps to shift you from "As a noble follower of the noble communist ideals, I'd love to pay more taxes." to "Bloody thieves!" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves.

---

Pay with what? The crumbles that are left over after the thieves have gotten their share?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.

---

Unless you're the government. Then you have a magic pot called "taxpayers".

EDIT: and what's all your talk about a tax rate of 28 %? What paradise do you live in? In Belgium, you don't have to earn a fortune to fall in the 50 % income tax scale. And then you have social security: 16,5 % of your salary + your employer pays an additional 33 % of your salary. Highest VAT rate here is 21 %. And then you have property tax, insurance tax, vehicle tax and all kinds of silly taxes and what not.

EDIT2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And I'm very happy to pay my taxes, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of paying more in taxes.

---

This got to be the most hilarious statement I ever read :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.

---

That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.

---

We all need health care, we all need roads, we all need culture, we all need education, etc etc etc

INt he UK the government keeps trying to narrow the rich / poor divide:

Education: rich parents probably spend more time with their children, talk to them more, get them more interested in the world / didn't drink / smoke during pregnancy. Solution? More money for schools that have poor children. Failing that, discriminate against people with rich parents at university
Health: you die younger when you're poorer. Mainly due to drinking, smoking, no exercise and overeating. Solution? Throw money at campaigns to try to get these people to do what's plainly obvious.
More wealthy: higheer wages for menial jobs. Low productivity? So what?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves. There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.

---

Question: If the working and middle need to pay for their government programs. Why is it that you have decided that just because they pay 30% and the rich pay 50% that their contribution is not a "fair" share. Why is it that in order for the money that they put in to be a "fair" amount, has to be an equal percentage to the share that a rich person puts in?

So when the average man pays his 30% of the national median salary of $44,389 and ends up with $31,072, he now has to feed his family (lets say 4 including him) with the equivalent of 1.41 times the poverty line for a family of 4 ($20,050) instead of about 2 times the national poverty line.

The the rich man who makes lets say...7 grand a week or $384,000, will pay this flat 30% and make off with $268,800. He now has to feed his family of 4 with 13.4 times the poverty line instead of 19.15 times the poverty line.

Can we honestly say that if we are to take <1 as starving that the family who gets sent from 2 to 1.41 is impacted just the same as the family sent from 19.15 to 13.4? Really guys?

EDIT: Used American numbers and statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.

---

That is completely ridiculous. The middle class feel strained economically as well at least in the United States. The middle class in America must pay large amounts of money for utility bills, credit card bills, etc. When you take more money from them in taxes, you might be providing them health care and all these other good things we all need, but then they have to further stretch their dollar further and cut back on TV, other forms of entertainment, and cannot eat out so they can continue to live in their house with electricity and heating and all those other essentials to survive. The standard of living had dropped dramatically for them, they may not be starving but they are pushed closer to the limit of being self sustainable and losing everything (especially if a recession hit and they lost their job) and they begin to serve a life of servitude, where they work to survive, they work to pay the bills for the private "thieves" as someone put it and the government "Al Capones" as someone else put it. They may not be starving, but they are nevertheless reduced to economic slavery of working nonstop in order to feed the beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

EDIT: and what's all your talk about a tax rate of 28 %? What paradise do you live in? In Belgium, you don't have to earn a fortune to fall in the 50 % income tax scale. And then you have social security: 16,5 % of your salary + your employer pays an additional 33 % of your salary. Highest VAT rate here is 21 %. And then you have property tax, insurance tax, vehicle tax and all kinds of silly taxes and what not.

---

It's just a number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

This got to be the most hilarious statement I ever read :laugh4:

---

....And it's actually completely true!

I'm actually very happy to pay my taxes. I actually feel that my money is spent wisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The middle class in America must pay large amounts of money for utility bills, credit card bills, etc.

---

Lolz! The people who are dumb enough to have credit card bills should be forced to pay at least 90% of their income in taxes.