the poor are more charitable than the rich. (suck it libertarians and conservatives)

[x togepi x]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=1

This compassion deficit — the inability to empathetically relate to others’ needs — is perhaps not so surprising in a society that for decades has seen the experiential gap between the well-off and the poor (and even the middle class) significantly widen. The economist Frank Levy diagnosed such a split in his book “The New Dollars and Dreams: American Incomes and Economic Change,” published in the midst of the late-1990s tech boom. “The welfare state,” Levy wrote, “rests on enlightened self-interest in which people can look at beneficiaries and reasonably say, ‘There but for the grace of God. . . .’ As income differences widen, this statement rings less true.” A lack of identification with those in need may explain in part why a 2007 report from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that only a small percentage of charitable giving by the wealthy was actually going to the needs of the poor; instead it was mostly directed to other causes — cultural institutions, for example, or their alma maters — which often came with the not-inconsequential payoff of enhancing the donor’s status among his or her peers.

It's even more interesting at the end where the author talks about how people's perception of giving changes when they change their view of their own class (ie: if rich people think of themselves as poor, they give more and vice versa). Surely there isn't some sort of social construction behind all of this? nah, capitalism is great.

[macabre]

It would be interesting to see whether liberals are more likely to donate to charities that benefit the poor than conservatives after controlling for income. Conservatives have been shown to donate more than liberals in a few studies but I doubt those studies looked into where the money actually went. Many libertarians make the argument that charitable donations could possibly compensate for the current welfare state if taxes weren't so high but I have always been skeptical of this claim, mainly on the basis that all donations do not specifically benefit the poor.

[x togepi x]

It would be interesting to see whether liberals are more likely to donate to charities that benefit the poor than conservatives after controlling for income. Conservatives have been shown to donate more than liberals in a few studies but I doubt those studies looked into where the money actually went. Many libertarians make the argument that charitable donations could possibly compensate for the current welfare state if taxes weren't so high but I have always been skeptical of this claim, mainly on the basis that all donations do not specifically benefit the poor.

I'd especially wonder if conservatives are donating the same way the rich are according that the article i posted, where it's like "look i donated to this christian charity. tell me how great i am".

[bung]

When isolating charitable donations from all other facets of society:

From an Aristotelian perspective, the collective poor would be considered more virtuous because of their relative generosity. That is, as the article states, they give a larger percentage of their income to charity as compared to the rich.

From a utilitarian perspective, the collective rich would be considered to be doing more good and helping society in a better way. That is, the much larger dollar amount they give would be able to benefit more people as a whole, and a term like "generous" would be irrelevant when discussing what is good and/or "better."

Keep in mind that utilitarianism is rule or action-based, Aristotle's notion of ethics is character-based, and that the two systems of thought are generally accepted as incompatible with one another.

[x togepi x]

from a utilitarian perspective, all of the terrible things the rich do to the poor in the third world heavily outweigh what little they donate (to schools and places that make them look good)

[TheProsAndCons]

Only if you use 'rich' and 'poor' loosely.

[x togepi x]

Only if you use 'rich' and 'poor' loosely.

what?

[Regards]

I thought this was something that was pretty well known?

[GeeBee]

I thought this was something that was pretty well known?
On the contrary...conservatives have claimed the upper hand in charitable giving for quite some time. However, they fail to mention that as a proportion of what they HAVE, their donations are largely a pittance, almost insulting.

Charity is measured by how much you leave for yourself.

[TheProsAndCons]

what?

What's your definition of 'rich' and 'poor'? My definition of poor is obviously different to yours (and the author of the article), because, to me, a 'poor person' wouldn't be able to donate any money, because they are poor, whereas, to me, a 'rich person' wouldn't think of themselves as poor....because they're not living in poverty.

[bung]

from a utilitarian perspective, all of the terrible things the rich do to the poor in the third world heavily outweigh what little they donate (to schools and places that make them look good)

Red herring.

[x togepi x]

What's your definition of 'rich' and 'poor'? My definition of poor is obviously different to yours (and the author of the article), because, to me, a 'poor person' wouldn't be able to donate any money, because they are poor, whereas, to me, a 'rich person' wouldn't think of themselves as poor....because they're not living in poverty.

did you read the article? they're going by income rates. poor=/= not having any money whatsoever.

Red herring.


talking about the rich's effect on the rest of the world when you're speaking about doing a utilitarian calculation is quite relevant.

[bung]

talking about the rich's effect on the rest of the world when you're speaking about doing a utilitarian calculation is quite relevant.

No, we're talking about utilitarian theory specifically in regards to charitable donations, which is what your thread is about.

[TheProsAndCons]

did you read the article? they're going by income rates. poor=/= not having any money whatsoever.


'Rich' = + $75,000?....that's not rich, that's middle-class.

But, regardless, 'Poor' (from the cut-off point) people average - $1050
'Rich' (from the cut-off point) people average - $2025.
So, therefore rich people give just over twice as much as poor people.

[x togepi x]

No, we're talking about utilitarian theory specifically in regards to charitable donations, which is what your thread is about.

Too bad that utilitarian calculations done in a vacuum are meaningless in regards to how things function in the real world. that's one of the problems with utilitarianism as a theory.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I thought everybody knew this?

How religious a person is correlates directly with amounts of charity too.

[Debut_Fin]

On the contrary...conservatives have claimed the upper hand in charitable giving for quite some time.

conservatives claim a lot of things

[Unique Dragon]

I believe that the poor only live to serve and the servers live to thrive in adversity, as Dr. Frederich Guttenheim once stated, " It is better to have deceived the needy in to thinking that they are the ones who need help". Honor over Respect. Respect over Truth. Truth over Valor. Valor over Prosperity. Prosperity over Gratuity. Thats what society really boils down to. Basically what I'm saying is, nothing can be won if there is not something to lose.

[bung]

Too bad that utilitarian calculations done in a vacuum are meaningless in regards to how things function in the real world. that's one of the problems with utilitarianism as a theory.

There you go, making assertions while not backing anything up. Something that you yourself do constantly but then harp on others when they do it.

[paper halo]

'Rich' = + $75,000?....that's not rich, that's middle-class.

But, regardless, 'Poor' (from the cut-off point) people average - $1050
'Rich' (from the cut-off point) people average - $2025.
So, therefore rich people give just over twice as much as poor people.

Lol.

[Neo Cassady]

'Rich' = + $75,000?....that's not rich, that's middle-class.

But, regardless, 'Poor' (from the cut-off point) people average - $1050
'Rich' (from the cut-off point) people average - $2025.
So, therefore rich people give just over twice as much as poor people.

1) It's all relative. $75k is rich here, but not in, say, Los Angeles.
2) $1050 x 2 = $2100.

[Machu505]

1) It's all relative. $75k is rich here, but not in, say, Los Angeles.
2) $1050 x 2 = $2100. There's a garage for every car in Appalachia, right?

[Alou]

Poor and rich are so relative it'd be hard to pull off any study that showed this more definitively. Definitely a lot of rich people who could spare a lot more though probably. =/

[rawspinner]

It'd be great if people lived out charity. So instead of giving so and so money, we actually spent time with the poor, the needy, those who have been socially outcast.

[zion the lion]

Yeah my momma gives homeless people a shit ton of money all the time, and when she doesnt have money she'll give them cigarettes.

[TheProsAndCons]

Lol.

1) It's all relative. $75k is rich here, but not in, say, Los Angeles.
2) $1050 x 2 = $2100.

I went to sleep right after I posted that. Over = under.

[Roboman]

Yeah my momma gives homeless people a shit ton of money all the time, and when she doesnt have money she'll give them cigarettes.

Another glorious contribution from zion.

[Fox83]

A thread on ap.net bashing conservatives. Completely out of left field. Shocked.

[yves.]

A thread on ap.net bashing conservatives. Completely out of left field. Shocked.

where has there been any conservative bashing in this thread?

[paper halo]

A thread on ap.net bashing conservatives. Completely out of left field. Shocked.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/97410-wahmbulance.jpg

It's a discussion, hardly 'bashing'. Try getting involved, instead of just complaining.

[crackedthesky]

A thread on ap.net bashing conservatives. Completely out of left field. Shocked.

Perhaps you should contribute something pro-conservative to the conversation instead of bitching about it, then.
Or perhaps your discomfort stems from the fact that you can't use factual claims to rebuke these assertions, so it's far easier to carpet-bomb everyone on the entire site.

[a nice person]

maybe if poor people didn't give so much, they could be rich.

[SSLYBY]

maybe if poor people didn't give so much, they could be rich.

Money isn't everything.

[Scrandon]

maybe if poor people didn't give so much, they could be rich.

Global poverty: solved.

Remember, you read it here on ap.net first.

[Nevuk]

The easiest way to get rid of the rich people is to kill them. Wait. There's a problem with this theory. Eventually the people less rich than them would be rich. Via the plunder of various items and contrabulations. Then where are we?

[x togepi x]

'Rich' = + $75,000?....that's not rich, that's middle-class.

I'm fairly certain the article was defining rich as above $250,000 a year.

So, therefore rich people give just over twice as much as poor people.

The article was talking about proportional income. The poor donate a higher percentage of their income than the rich. Also, since they have less money, the percentage that they donate effects their lives a lot more than the rich. It also pointed out that the rich's donations tend to be places like their colleges that really don't help people out but rather increase their social status.

A thread on ap.net bashing conservatives. Completely out of left field. Shocked.

Conservatives and libertarians shouldn't have idiotic ideologies and they wouldn't get bashed. Care to actually respond to the article?

There you go, making assertions while not backing anything up. Something that you yourself do constantly but then harp on others when they do it.

This is a common fucking criticism of utilitarianism. Go take a philosophy 101 class and get back to me. It'd be like me saying "the sky is blue" and you whining that i didn't prove my assertion.

The famous fat man stuck in the cave or kids on the railroad tracks thought experiments show that a utilitarian calculus must take into consideration the implications of the decision, even if they aren't implicit in the decision.

Hell, philosopher Bernard Williams in an article called Against Utilitarianism, pointed out that utilitarianism tried to make complex decisions in insanely simple ways, which is not how things work in the real world. google that shit, but you'll probably whine about something else.

Yeah my momma gives homeless people a shit ton of money all the time, and when she doesnt have money she'll give them cigarettes.

I know that's purely anecdotal evidence so it's probably not worthwhile but that's been my experience too.

[zion the lion]

Another glorious contribution from zion.

And what have you contributed? Oh thats right, just a bitchy little whiny comment.


Things that make you go hmm....

[Roboman]

And what have you contributed? Oh thats right, just a bitchy little whiny comment.


Things that make you go hmm....

Was that "shit ton of money" that your momma gave all stolen from your wallet?

[bung]

This is a common fucking criticism of utilitarianism. Go take a philosophy 101 class and get back to me. It'd be like me saying "the sky is blue" and you whining that i didn't prove my assertion.

The famous fat man stuck in the cave or kids on the railroad tracks thought experiments show that a utilitarian calculus must take into consideration the implications of the decision, even if they aren't implicit in the decision.

Hell, philosopher Bernard Williams in an article called Against Utilitarianism, pointed out that utilitarianism tried to make complex decisions in insanely simple ways, which is not how things work in the real world. google that shit, but you'll probably whine about something else.


Trust me, I know far more about utilitarianism than you do.

Saying "Too bad that utilitarian calculations done in a vacuum are meaningless in regards to how things function in the real world. that's one of the problems with utilitarianism as a theory," wasn't even a valid criticism because you didn't provide any why or any reason. Then you get butthurt and defensive when I ask you to expand in so many words.

Bernard Williams, although I admittedly admire a lot of his work, argued against a straw man of utilitarianism, which is a common criticism of his work. Since you just told me to read a book/essay, rather than truly substantiating your argument, I'll do the same.

Read this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fqqr9wSVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg), this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RArGNfdIL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg), and this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41AXpEDhriL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg), all part of a series. Modern research in neuroscience/cognitive science, which Williams did not have access to, actually supports exactly what what he argued against--namely that moral decisions, for most people, are (relatively) simple intuition-driven endeavors when looked at from a neuroscientific perspective. The complexity of moral life he argued that utilitarianism incorrectly simplifies is, again, unequivocally wrong. Indeed, utilitarian thought actually facilitates complexity because it forces individuals to place total emphasis on consequence rather than other, immediate moral agents; or, in other words, it forces people to evaluate concepts that evolution didn't naturally endow upon us to do.

Also read some Peter Singer.

[<*)))><]

I don't know how much this relates but my job I work for tips and I noticed 'poor' people tend to tip less then followed by 'rich' and I get the biggest tips from 'middleclass'. I make my assumption based on what cars they drive and how they dress so isn't going to be exact.

[x togepi x]

Trust me, I know far more about utilitarianism than you do.

I doubt that but whatever.

Saying "Too bad that utilitarian calculations done in a vacuum are meaningless in regards to how things function in the real world. that's one of the problems with utilitarianism as a theory," wasn't even a valid criticism because you didn't provide any why or any reason. Then you get butthurt and defensive when I ask you to expand in so many words.

Not really, it's common knowledge. I don't feel like explaining why 2+2 =4 but maybe I will later on a date where I don't have a show to play.

Bernard Williams, although I admittedly admire a lot of his work, argued against a straw man of utilitarianism, which is a common criticism of his work. Since you just told me to read a book/essay, rather than truly substantiating your argument, I'll do the same.

Read this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fqqr9wSVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg), this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RArGNfdIL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg), and this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41AXpEDhriL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb -sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg), all part of a series. Modern research in neuroscience/cognitive science, which Williams did not have access to, actually supports exactly what what he argued against--namely that moral decisions, for most people, are (relatively) simple intuition-driven endeavors. The complexity of moral life he argued that utilitarianism incorrectly simplifies is, again, unequivocally wrong. Indeed, utilitarian thought actually facilitates complexity because it forces individuals to place total emphasis on consequence rather than other, immediate moral agents; or, in other words, it forces people to evaluate concepts that evolution didn't naturally endow upon us to do.

This is interesting but you're not "placing total emphasis on consequence" because you're trying to ignore the social/economic/cultural conditions that allow for the rich to have the wealth to begin with. nor are you willing to look at the specific consequences of the rich's form of charity (ie: does largely donating to places like their alma maters really do more good than the poor?)

maybe the question of how they've generated their wealth (and their inability or unwillingness to address the inequitable system that allows this exploitation) and their charity are separate issues, but they're related when discussing this article because the type of wealth gap they're referring to is at least partially responsible for the different ways in which compassion manifests in social classes.

Also read some Peter Singer.

dude hates on the rich more than most famous american philosophers currently. i've read some. if anything, this article supports his line of work, at least in recent years where he was advocating the rich donate larger portions of their incomes to help the third world.

[KingsCrossing]

It's even more interesting at the end where the author talks about how people's perception of giving changes when they change their view of their own class (ie: if rich people think of themselves as poor, they give more and vice versa).

From a social psychology perspective this makes a lot of sense. It has to do with in-groups vs. out-groups. I have a study at home that pertains exactly to this. When I get back later I'll be sure to share.

[crackedthesky]

I haven't read all of the argument yet, but in my experience, if you're arguing with togepi, it usually means you're wrong.

[bung]

This is interesting but you're not "placing total emphasis on consequence" because you're trying to ignore the social/economic/cultural conditions that allow for the rich to have the wealth to begin with.

This is too vague to comment on.

nor are you willing to look at the specific consequences of the rich's form of charity (ie: does largely donating to places like their alma maters really do more good than the poor?)

Even if a large portion of the wealthy class' charitable donations are to their alma maters, they would only need to give a fraction of their donations to organizations benefiting the poor in order to "create more good" due to the sheer dollar amount of their donations in comparison to the small total sum given by the poor themselves. If we're talking in utilitarian terms, the 2% difference would be completely negligible because of the enormous discrepancy in incomes.

maybe the question of how they've generated their wealth (and their inability or unwillingness to address the inequitable system that allows this exploitation) and their charity are separate issues, but they're related when discussing this article because the type of wealth gap they're referring to is at least partially responsible for the different ways in which compassion manifests in social classes.

But the article also states that their so-called lack of compassion can easily be "remedied," as in the effect disappears, after being exposed to certain stimuli. This finding tends to push in the direction that the effect is not as deep-rooted as you make it out to be, nor are you addressing that it's a whopping 2% difference in the first place.

dude hates on the rich more than most famous american philosophers currently. i've read some. if anything, this article supports his line of work, at least in recent years where he was advocating the rich donate larger portions of their incomes to help the third world.

And I advocate that they should donate more to help the third world, too. I agree with him. They should be donating more money because of the number of people it would help--no question about that, and it's right to criticize the wealthy in that they aren't donating enough. But what we're talking about is what they are doing in terms of charitable donations relative to those coming from the poor, and which has the greater net utilitarian effect.

He's also a utilitarian.

[bung]

I haven't read all of the argument yet, but in my experience, if you're arguing with togepi, it usually means you're wrong.

Weren't you the one bitching about people bitching about the topic, while not adding anything constructive?

[zion the lion]

Was that "shit ton of money" that your momma gave all stolen from your wallet?

No, it came from her paycheck.

[crackedthesky]

Weren't you the one bitching about people bitching about the topic, while not adding anything constructive?

Haha, wow. Butthurt, much?

[bung]

Haha, wow. Butthurt, much?

Hey man, just sayin'.

[crackedthesky]

Hey man, just sayin'.

Even if my post hadn't been a contribution, I wasn't "bitching" at people for not contributing to the thread. I was "bitching" about the way he used a complete and total blanket insult which had nothing at all to do with anything anybody said because he was butthurt over the thread topic.
Just saying.

[Mibabalou]

burn the rich !!

[x togepi x]

This is too vague to comment on.

not really, i'm referring to the totality of neomarxist theory. don't exactly feel like writing a ton just to point out how capitalism shapes the societies that use it as an economic system.

example: say a rich dude owns a company that uses maquilladora labor. he donates a percentage of his wealth to charity.

A decent utilitarian calculus should take all of that into consideration since the wealth they are donating is a product of this exploitation. My problem with what you're saying is that you're not looking at the conditions that wealth has been generated from. The good from the charity is being outweighed by the bad done by the exploitation to generate this wealth.

Why this matters is that we often pat rich people on the back for donating large sums of wealth but hardly critique the conditions they from which they developed it. This can, in turn, be used as a justification to glorify those individuals.

Even if a large portion of the wealthy class' charitable donations are to their alma maters, they would only need to give a fraction of their donations to organizations benefiting the poor in order to "create more good" due to the sheer dollar amount of their donations in comparison to the small total sum given by the poor themselves. If we're talking in utilitarian terms, the 2% difference would be completely negligible because of the enormous discrepancy in incomes.

clearly but when you factor in all the bad they're doing, it still isn't an indicator of their compassion. like yeah, obviously 2% of Bill Gates's income is going to do a lot more good than 2% of mine. I think compassion should be defined in a more holistic manner. the question of whether someone is compassionate should take into consideration more than just charity.

But the article also states that their so-called lack of compassion can easily be "remedied," as in the effect disappears, after being exposed to certain stimuli. This finding tends to push in the direction that the effect is not as deep-rooted as you make it out to be, nor are you addressing that it's a whopping 2% difference in the first place.

I find that portion of the article to be sort of problematic for various reasons, specifically the idea that if it's so easy to remedy, why aren't charities already doing this for the rich?

the 2% difference is important in context. 2% more of someone's income when they're making minimum wage is a lot more significant to their lives in proportion. I believe the author's claim is based on that. the idea that a poorer person is willing to donate a portion of their money that effects them more significantly than a rich person is where the author draws the claims about compassion.


And I advocate that they should donate more to help the third world, too. I agree with him. They should be donating more money because of the number of people it would help--no question about that, and it's right to criticize the wealthy in that they aren't donating enough. But what we're talking about is what they are doing in terms of charitable donations relative to those coming from the poor, and which has the greater net utilitarian effect.

No, *you're* the one talking about the greater net utilitarian effect. I"m talking about compassion as a value and how it may be problematic to use a utilitarian calculus to determine such a thing.

He's also a utilitarian.

clearly, but one can like portions of someone's advocacy while not agreeing with it all. i'm a fan of how he is fairly straightforward about telling people they ought to donate more but i'm not necessarily a fan of how he derives those positions.

[<*)))><]

Another capitalism is evil post from togepi.

[samsara]

If that sentence made sense, it would still be wrong.

[crackedthesky]

I find that no one school of philosophy is right 100% of the time. Therefore, I think different (sometimes perhaps all) need to be applied to a situation to fully understand it and discover the best possible outcome.

[jawstheme]

I like that the article touches on the lack of empathy the rich have toward the poor. It's very true. Just another reason why the trickle down effect is complete bullshit. Fishbones is an idiot, by the way.

[x togepi x]

Another capitalism is evil post from togepi.

Capitalism isn't evil you dumb fuck. It was a necessary step towards greater things. We just hold onto it because we're dumb.

[jawstheme]

Capitalism isn't evil you dumb fuck. It was a necessary step towards greater things. We just hold onto it because we're dumb.

It's not evil, but it certainly doesn't seem to work.

[saysmydoctor]

Capitalism isn't evil you dumb fuck. It was a necessary step towards greater things. We just hold onto it because we're dumb.
Hey, it's Karl Marx.

[Scrandon]

I like that the article touches on the lack of empathy the rich have toward the poor. It's very true. Just another reason why the trickle down effect is complete bullshit. Fishbones is an idiot, by the way.

Supply side economics does not require any empathy from the rich, this is not a reason why the theory is bullshit. Not defending it, just saying that your drawing extremely erroneous conclusions.

Edit: However, I do completely agree with you regarding your stance on Fishbones, haha.

[x togepi x]

Hey, it's Karl Marx.

he wasn't entirely wrong. too much faith in the dialectic though.

[jawstheme]

Supply side economics does not require any empathy from the rich, this is not a reason why the theory is bullshit. Not defending it, just saying that your drawing extremely erroneous conclusions.

The theory is bullshit for a lot of reasons, I was just saying that I liked the lack of empathy part of the article. And it may not be the main reason the theory is bullshit, but it contributes.

[Scrandon]

The theory is bullshit for a lot of reasons, I was just saying that I liked the lack of empathy part of the article. And it may not be the main reason the is bullshit, but it contributes.

It really doesn't contribute at all. There are other reasons that the theory doesn't work, this is simply not one of them.

Supply Side Economics does not assume that money will trickle down due to the overwhelming empathy of the rich. The theory assumes the same basic tenets of any capitalistic society, that people will act according to rational self interest. They assume that the rich, acting in a completely self-interested manner, will stimulate the economy and make it better for everyone.

[<*)))><]

Capitalism isn't evil you dumb fuck. It was a necessary step towards greater things. We just hold onto it because we're dumb.
Good in the beginning, evil in the end?

[jawstheme]

It really doesn't contribute at all. There are other reasons that the theory doesn't work, this is simply not one of them.

Supply Side Economics does not assume that money will trickle down due to the overwhelming empathy of the rich. The theory assumes the same basic tenets of any capitalistic society, that people will act according to rational self interest. They assume that the rich, acting in a completely self-interested manner, will stimulate the economy and make it better for everyone.

But doesn't the amount of empathy the rich have for the poor effect the amount of charity given to the poor? And isn't charity a small part of the trickle down effect? So, it would contribute?

[Scrandon]

But doesn't the amount of empathy the rich have for the poor effect the amount of charity given to the poor? And isn't charity a small part of the trickle down effect? So, it would contribute?

The Trickle Down Effect refers more to money actually stimulating the economy through the rich spending it, not donating it.

For example, the typical FoxNews rhetoric:

Cut taxes. -> Businesses now have more money and can hire more people. -> People who need jobs will be hired.
or
Cut taxes. -> Rich people now have more money and can spend more, stimulating demand and increasing the need for business growth. -> People who need jobs can be hired.

Obviously this is not always the case (i.e. Bush Tax cuts), but its shortcomings have nothing to do with charity.

If charity was a part of the trickle down effect, it would obviously make sense to just give the money straight from the government to those who need the charity. However, supporters of Supply Side theory argue that it stimulates the economy to a point that cannot be done any other way.

[x togepi x]

the trickle down effect is largely empirically denied. instead, people just save the money after a certain point.

[Scrandon]

k cool. That's irrelevant to the point I'm arguing, which is that charity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[<*)))><]

the trickle down effect is largely empirically denied. instead, people just save the money after a certain point.
You mean invest not save. When you reach certain amount of cash flow you put your money into bonds/stocks/ect which will further trickle down into other venture.

[Scrandon]

You mean invest not save. When you reach certain amount of cash flow you put your money into bonds/stocks/ect which will further trickle down into other venture.

Investing = saving in an economic sense. Investing does nothing to stimulate the economy or trickle down money to the lower rungs. Or, you know, you could just continue to perpetuate ideology that has been proven ineffective.

[x togepi x]

You mean invest not save. When you reach certain amount of cash flow you put your money into bonds/stocks/ect which will further trickle down into other venture.

If trickle down economics work, explain to me why the bush tax cuts did shit for our economy and why the income gap has been growing rapidly.

[<*)))><]

If trickle down economics work, explain to me why the bush tax cuts did shit for our economy and why the income gap has been growing rapidly.
Bush Tax cuts I believe were affect From 03-08 the stock market rose greatly
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/charts/big.chart?symb=nasdaq&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=0&maval=9&uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&state=8&sid=3291&style=320&time=13&freq=2&nosettings=1&rand=1933&mocktick=1&rand=1912

Now I will agree with you the gap with income is growing but people are gaining a higher standard of living.

[macabre]

Now I will agree with you the gap with income is growing but people are gaining a higher SLANDERED of living.

This guy has to be a troll. Come on!

edit: He fixed it but the quote is his original post.

[Scrandon]

Not to mention his only standard of measurement for the economy is how the stock market is doing. What a dumbass.

[x togepi x]

Bush Tax cuts I believe were affect From 03-08 the stock market rose greatly
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/charts/big.chart?symb=nasdaq&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=0&maval=9&uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&state=8&sid=3291&style=320&time=13&freq=2&nosettings=1&rand=1933&mocktick=1&rand=1912

Now I will agree with you the gap with income is growing but people are gaining a higher standard of living.

uh... the fact that you think people are getting a higher standard of living across the board (while admit that the income gap is growing) shows that you have absolutely no idea what the world is like outside your little conservative capitalist bubble.

[<*)))><]

uh... the fact that you think people are getting a higher standard of living across the board (while admit that the income gap is growing) shows that you have absolutely no idea what the world is like outside your little conservative capitalist bubble.
GDP is going up and it is directly related to a standard of living.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/%7Etkehoe/U.S.GDP.gif

[crackedthesky]

You mean invest not save. When you reach certain amount of cash flow you put your money into bonds/stocks/ect which will further trickle down into other venture.

I prefer the term "hoard."

[InTheatersNow]

You can't say that donating to a college doesn't help the poor. That money could be going to scholarships for poor people.

[jawstheme]

The Trickle Down Effect refers more to money actually stimulating the economy through the rich spending it, not donating it.

For example, the typical FoxNews rhetoric:

Cut taxes. -> Businesses now have more money and can hire more people. -> People who need jobs will be hired.
or
Cut taxes. -> Rich people now have more money and can spend more, stimulating demand and increasing the need for business growth. -> People who need jobs can be hired.

Obviously this is not always the case (i.e. Bush Tax cuts), but its shortcomings have nothing to do with charity.

If charity was a part of the trickle down effect, it would obviously make sense to just give the money straight from the government to those who need the charity. However, supporters of Supply Side theory argue that it stimulates the economy to a point that cannot be done any other way.

I agree with everything you said here.

[Scrandon]

You can't say that donating to a college doesn't help the poor. That money could be going to scholarships for poor people.

Possibly, but there are probably much better and more direct ways to donate money to the poor.

[InTheatersNow]

Possibly, but there are probably much better and more direct ways to donate money to the poor.

Like hand a bum change for booze, right.

Also, rich people donate to charity every week. It's called taxes. It funds all the social welfare programs.

[A Wild Pikachu!]

Like hand a bum change for booze, right.

Also, rich people donate to charity every week. It's called taxes. It funds all the social welfare programs.
You realize this is exactly the kind of thing that the dick in a teen movie with the slicked back hair and white blazer says to the protagonist just before he gets dumped by the hot chick and lives the rest of his life alone, taking his hatred for humanity out on his own crotch every night...

...right?

[InTheatersNow]

You realize this is exactly the kind of thing that the dick in a teen movie with the slicked back hair and white blazer says to the protagonist just before he gets dumped by the hot chick and lives the rest of his life alone, taking his hatred for humanity out on his own crotch every night...

...right?

Not sure what movie that is from or which of the two statements you are referring to or how any of what you said makes my points any less valid.

A bum asked me for some money the other day, but I didn't have any cash and he was being really in my face so I offered him a granola bar instead and he turned it down. That happened in real life, not a movie.

[caveBEAR]

Like hand a bum change for booze, right.

Also, rich people donate to charity every week. It's called taxes. It funds all the social welfare programs.

Yup, dude, exactly. The only two things you can do to help the poor are donate money to a college or hand a bum booze money.
:rolleyes:

[J.C.]

I'm glad I read this thread. I never knew only the rich paid taxes.

[caveBEAR]

I'm glad I read this thread. I never knew only the rich paid taxes.

Man, poor people even get a tax return! Poor people have got it made.

[InTheatersNow]

I'm glad I read this thread. I never knew only the rich paid taxes.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html .

[InTheatersNow]

Man, poor people even get a tax return! Poor people have got it made.

Now I know you don't know shit. Every one has the possibility of getting a tax return. It all depends on how much money was withheld during the year.

[J.C.]

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html .

The top 1% controls 42% of the country's wealth. The top 10% controls 93%.

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

[Scrandon]

Now I know you don't know shit. Every one has the possibility of getting a tax return. It all depends on how much money was withheld during the year.

Everyone so far has been completely sarcastic with you, the funny part is you taking them seriously.

There are these things called charity organizations that people can donate to and they will in turn relay the money to poor people in a constructive manner, not just for booze.

And taxes have absolutely zero to do with charity and generosity, especially when the people who are in higher tax brackets are constantly bitching about being overtaxed.

[Scrandon]

The top 1% controls 42% of the country's wealth. The top 10% controls 93%.

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

Income is more relevant, although I would imagine it would be very close, maybe slightly less.

[caveBEAR]

Now I know you don't know shit. Every one has the possibility of getting a tax return. It all depends on how much money was withheld during the year.

Pot? It's me...kettle.

[Zeran]

Everyone so far has been completely sarcastic with you, the funny part is you taking them seriously.

There are these things called charity organizations that people can donate to and they will in turn relay the money to poor people in a constructive manner, not just for booze.

And taxes have absolutely zero to do with charity and generosity, especially when the people who are in higher tax brackets are constantly bitching about being overtaxed.

i don't know why they are. america is one of the least-taxed nations in the g20 and, currently, the rich have huge tax breaks.

[InTheatersNow]

The top 1% controls 42% of the country's wealth. The top 10% controls 93%.

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

Exactly. Poor people don't pay taxes.

[crackedthesky]

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html .

The top 1% also has most of the money. Think a flat tax would work? Here:
Let's say you, me, and The Bear all live on an island together. In order for our island to not get blown up by other countries, we must pay 100 bananas per day.
Bear makes 20 bananas per day, and I make 20 bananas per day. You make 350 bananas per day. It takes an average of 5 bananas per day per person just to live.
So we should all just give 15 bananas, right? And we'll all live happily ever after?
Or perhaps I should give 5 bananas, Bear should give 5 bananas, and you should give 90 bananas. Yeah, it seems like you're giving a lot, but in the end, even after that, I have 15 bananas, Bear has 15 bananas, and you have 260 bananas that will probably all rot before you ever get a chance to eat them, but you feel a need to keep them anyway.

Now I know you don't know shit. Every one has the possibility of getting a tax return. It all depends on how much money was withheld during the year.

Really... there's no way you're real :lol:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Exactly. Poor people don't pay taxes.

They pay taxes.

[InTheatersNow]

The top 1% also has most of the money. Think a flat tax would work? Here:
Let's say you, me, and The Bear all live on an island together. In order for our island to not get blown up by other countries, we must pay 100 bananas per day.
Bear makes 20 bananas per day, and I make 20 bananas per day. You make 350 bananas per day. It takes an average of 5 bananas per day per person just to live.
So we should all just give 15 bananas, right? And we'll all live happily ever after?
Or perhaps I should give 5 bananas, Bear should give 5 bananas, and you should give 90 bananas. Yeah, it seems like you're giving a lot, but in the end, even after that, I have 15 bananas, Bear has 15 bananas, and you have 260 bananas that will probably all rot before you ever get a chance to eat them, but you feel a need to keep them anyway.



Really... there's no way you're real :lol:

Yes, I have an accounting degree from Indiana University.

[crackedthesky]

Yes, I have an accounting degree from Indiana University.

Then it's too bad it's going to waste.

[InTheatersNow]

They pay taxes.

If you don't make enough money it all gets returned. Work a summer job and then do your taxes and you will realize this.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

If you don't make enough money it all gets returned. Work a summer job and then do your taxes and you will realize this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

[InTheatersNow]

The top 1% also has most of the money. Think a flat tax would work? Here:
Let's say you, me, and The Bear all live on an island together. In order for our island to not get blown up by other countries, we must pay 100 bananas per day.
Bear makes 20 bananas per day, and I make 20 bananas per day. You make 350 bananas per day. It takes an average of 5 bananas per day per person just to live.
So we should all just give 15 bananas, right? And we'll all live happily ever after?
Or perhaps I should give 5 bananas, Bear should give 5 bananas, and you should give 90 bananas. Yeah, it seems like you're giving a lot, but in the end, even after that, I have 15 bananas, Bear has 15 bananas, and you have 260 bananas that will probably all rot before you ever get a chance to eat them, but you feel a need to keep them anyway.



Really... there's no way you're real :lol:

I would be fine paying 87.5 bananas. I feel everyone should pay the same rate, not the same amount.

[crackedthesky]

If you don't make enough money it all gets returned. Work a summer job and then do your taxes and you will realize this.

I have yet to see you not completely and utterly miss the point.

Besides, Income tax isn't the only tax out there. Not even the poorest of pour are immune to the sales tax.

[InTheatersNow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

You could have just said it, you didn't really need a link.

[InTheatersNow]

I have yet to see you not completely and utterly miss the point.

Besides, Income tax isn't the only tax out there. Not even the poorest of pour are immune to the sales tax.

You could never buy anything.

[crackedthesky]

I would be fine paying 87.5 bananas. I feel everyone should pay the same rate, not the same amount.

87.5 + 5 +5 =/= 100. But you know that already, Mr. Accounting Degree.

[crackedthesky]

You could never buy anything.

...what?

[J.C.]

Exactly. Poor people don't pay taxes.

Reading comprehension can be a valuable asset. Not being rich doesn't mean you're poor.

But go on, continue being more concerned about the tax rate than the gap in income inequality that shapes it.

[InTheatersNow]

...what?

Then you wouldn't pay sales tax.

[crackedthesky]

Then you wouldn't pay sales tax.

Wow. You're incredibly dumb.
It's really easy to sit back and come up with completely sarcastic, outlandish, and obviously impractical solutions to avoid talking about actual problems, but I actually have far better things to do than to humor you. You've already proven time and time again that you not only don't know anything, but that you have no ability to actually absorb information or really do anything besides spout out the latest GOP Fox News talking points, so I really have no desire to waste my time replying. Don't quote me again.

[x togepi x]

GDP is going up and it is directly related to a standard of living.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/%7Etkehoe/U.S.GDP.gif

Yeah it is related to the standard of living, if you're upper or middle class, but as the middle class shrinks and more and more people become poor, the standard goes down for those people. Hence, you're spouting insanely misleading statistics. You'd be right if the income gap wasn't widening.

[Scrandon]

i don't know why they are. america is one of the least-taxed nations in the g20 and, currently, the rich have huge tax breaks.

Yea, but as long as there's the possibility for them to push for lower taxes and keep more of their money, I'm pretty sure they will continue to.

[Scrandon]

You could never buy anything.

Holy shit! It's that simple! Just stop buying stuff! Tax problems = solved! Yay!

[saysmydoctor]

Guys, he has an accounting degree. Ignore the fact that's an appeal to his own authority and realize he knows what he's talking about.

[Simulcast]

Yeah, as a conservative I'm neither surprised nor concerned with this fact. Ideologically this just makes sense.

[Simulcast]

From the article:

“These patterns can be changed,” Piff says. What this means is that whatever morality tale can be spun by the giving patterns for rich people and poor people, it shouldn’t turn on the presumed nobility of the needy or essential cupidity of the fortunate.

Too late.

[Simulcast]

The top 1% also has most of the money. Think a flat tax would work? Here:
Let's say you, me, and The Bear all live on an island together. In order for our island to not get blown up by other countries, we must pay 100 bananas per day.
Bear makes 20 bananas per day, and I make 20 bananas per day. You make 350 bananas per day. It takes an average of 5 bananas per day per person just to live.
So we should all just give 15 bananas, right? And we'll all live happily ever after?
Or perhaps I should give 5 bananas, Bear should give 5 bananas, and you should give 90 bananas. Yeah, it seems like you're giving a lot, but in the end, even after that, I have 15 bananas, Bear has 15 bananas, and you have 260 bananas that will probably all rot before you ever get a chance to eat them, but you feel a need to keep them anyway.



Really... there's no way you're real :lol:

You have no idea what a flat tax is, do you? A flat tax means that everyone pays the same tax rate. so, by your example, if you and the bear are paying 5 bananas (25% of your income), then the rich guy is paying 25% of 350, which is 87.5 bananas. So yes, under your model, a flat tax would work. A flat tax is a great idea.


The other guy said he'd pay 87.5 bananas because it's 25% of his income and he realized you don't know what a flat tax is. He does know what it is.

Read up on it here (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax).

[Scrandon]

You have no idea what a flat tax is, do you? A flat tax means that everyone pays the same tax rate. so, by your example, if you and the bear are paying 5 bananas (25% of your income), then the rich guy is paying 25% of 350, which is 87.5 bananas. So yes, under your model, a flat tax would work. A flat tax is a great idea.

Read up on it here (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax).

The first day you establish the Flat Tax you are either going to:

A.) Put a greater burden on the lower rungs of income earners, or

B.) Lose a helluva lot of tax revenue,

depending on where you center the rate.

[Simulcast]

The first day you establish the Flat Tax you are either going to:

A.) Put a greater burden on the lower rungs of income earners, or

B.) Lose a helluva lot of tax revenue,

depending on where you center the rate.

From the article I posted:

In a remarkable development, former communist nations are leading a global tax reform revolution. Estonia was the first to adopt a flat tax, implementing a 26 percent rate in 1994, just a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The other two Baltic republics of the former Soviet Union enacted flat taxes in the mid-1990s, with Latvia choosing a 25 percent rate and Lithuania picking 33 percent. Along with other free-market reforms, the flat tax significantly improved economic growth, and the "Baltic Tigers" became role models for the region. Learning from its neighbors, Russia stunned the world by adopting a 13 percent flat tax, which went into effect in 2001.
The Russian flat tax quickly yielded positive results: The economy prospered, and revenues poured into government coffers since tax evasion and avoidance became much less profitable. The flat tax then spread to Serbia, which in 2003 chose a 14 percent rate. Slovakia hopped on the bandwagon the following year with a 19 percent flat tax, as did Ukraine, which chose a 13 percent tax rate. Earlier this year, Romania joined the flat tax revolution with a 16 percent tax rate, and Georgia adopted a 12 percent flat tax rate, which has the honor, at least temporarily, of being the lowest rate in the world.
The flat tax revolution has been so successful that Estonia is lowering its rate to keep pace with other nations. The Estonian flat tax is now down to 24 percent and will drop to 20 percent by 2007, and Lithuania is in the process of lowering its 33 percent flat tax to a more reasonable 24 percent.[11] Poland's government just announced that it will implement an 18 percent flat tax, and lawmakers in Croatia, Bulgaria, and Hungary are also considering tax reform. Last but not least, the opposition parties in the Czech Republic have promised to implement 15 percent flat tax regimes if they win the upcoming elections.[12]

Faster Economic Growth.
A flat tax would spur increased work, saving, and investment. By increasing incentives to engage in productive economic behavior, it would also boost the economy's long-term growth rate. Even if a flat tax boosted long-term growth by only 0.5 percent, the income of the average family of four after 10 years would be as much as $5,000 higher than it would be under current tax laws.
Instant Wealth Creation.
According to Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, tax reform would boost national wealth by nearly $5 trillion.[7] It would do this in part because all income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate.
Simplicity.
Complexity is a hidden tax amounting to more than $100 billion. This is the cost of tax preparation, lawyers, accountants, and other resources used to comply with the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Service even admits that the current tax code requires taxpayers to devote 6.6 billion hours each year to their tax returns.[8] Yet even this commitment of time is no guarantee of accuracy. The code is so complex that even tax experts and the IRS often make mistakes. All taxpayers, from General Motors to a hamburger-flipping teenager, would be able to fill out their tax return on a postcard-sized form, and compliance costs would drop by tens of billions of dollars.[9]
Fairness.
A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. No longer would the tax code penalize success and discriminate against citizens on the basis of income. Tax burdens would no longer depend on the number of lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants on the payroll.

[Scrandon]

From the article I posted:
The American economy was booming at the same time period as well, yet we did not adopt a Flat Tax. Correlation ≠ causation.

Additionally, we cannot afford to tax our lowest income earners at a rate above 20 percent. That is ridiculous.

There is no way you're going to tell me that there is so much tax evasion that we can lower the rate by ten percent of the top income earners and experience more revenue without solid numbers, which obviously don't exist anyway.

[Scrandon]

Ah yes, don't forget to throw in the obligatory "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" quote.

[Simulcast]

The American economy was booming at the same time period as well, yet we did not adopt a Flat Tax. Correlation ≠ causation.

Additionally, we cannot afford to tax our lowest income earners at a rate above 20 percent. That is ridiculous.

There is no way you're going to tell me that there is so much tax evasion that we can lower the rate by ten percent of the top income earners and experience more revenue without solid numbers, which obviously don't exist anyway.

Flat taxes aren't exclusive in their ability to foster economic growth. That the U.S. economy was booming has no bearing on the fact that these countries experienced success with a flat tax.


I make 30k a year right now and I currently see 25% of my paycheck gone every month through state and federal taxes.

[Scrandon]

If you are more interested in making the wealthy wealthier, this seems to be a compelling argument.

If you are interested in increasing government revenue and creating a more equitable society, don't turn to the flat tax.

[Simulcast]

Ah yes, don't forget to throw in the obligatory "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" quote.

What? A stereotype won't get you very far my friend.

[Simulcast]

If you are more interested in making the wealthy wealthier, this seems to be a compelling argument.

If you are interested in increasing government revenue and creating a more equitable society, don't turn to the flat tax.


You should read the link I posted. Seems like you are just generally opposed to the idea without actually understanding how it would work.

[Scrandon]

Flat taxes aren't exclusive in their ability to foster economic growth. That the U.S. economy was booming has no bearing on the fact that these countries experienced success with a flat tax.
It has no direct bearing, but it illustrates the fact that the article does not control for factors and does not prove causation.

I make 30k a year right now and I currently see 25% of my paycheck gone every month through state and federal taxes.
I am taxed at a rate of 9%, yet for some reason I don't feel guilty.

[Simulcast]

It has no direct bearing, but it illustrates the fact that the article does not control for factors and does not prove causation.


What factors are those?

I am taxed at a rate of 9%, yet for some reason I don't feel guilty.

Okay.

[Scrandon]

You should read the link I posted. Seems like you are just generally opposed to the idea without actually understanding how it would work.

No don't get me wrong, I did read it. I just feel that when someone uses rhetoric like 'Our current tax system penalizes success' they are full of shit.

In addition, your second quote talks about boosting national wealth by $5 trillion, which has nothing to do with government revenue and more to do with keeping money in the pockets of the rich.

Sorry if my initial objections were vague, but I definitely have thought about both sides' arguments.

[Scrandon]

What factors are those?
The same factors that made the American economy experience growth. Off the top of my head... the boom in the housing market.

[Simulcast]

No don't get me wrong, I did read it. I just feel that when someone uses rhetoric like 'Our current tax system penalizes success' they are full of shit.

In addition, your second quote talks about boosting national wealth by $5 trillion, which has nothing to do with government revenue and more to do with keeping money in the pockets of the rich.

Sorry if my initial objections were vague, but I definitely have thought about both sides' arguments.

Government revenue is not a marker of national wealth. The idea is to promote economic growth, not line the government's pockets.

[Simulcast]

The same factors that made the American economy experience growth. Off the top of my head... the boom in the housing market.

What does this have to do with the fact that flat tax was successful in the aforementioned countries?

[Scrandon]

What does this have to do with the fact that flat tax was successful in the aforementioned countries?

It doesn't prove at all that it was successful. Hell, it could have harmed the economy, but there were other factors that helped the economy so much that the nation experienced a net gain. As evidenced by the fact that, in a global economy, a majority of countries experienced economic growth during this time period, regardless of whether or not they adopted a flat tax. Therefore, this does not at all prove the effectiveness of a flat tax.

[Scrandon]

Government revenue is not a marker of national wealth. The idea is to promote economic growth, not line the government's pockets.

I know.

When designing a tax system, I would be most interested in one that provides as much revenue as possible to the government while minimizing the burden on society. You seem to completely disregard the former and only care about the latter in its relation to the top income earners.

[Simulcast]

It doesn't prove at all that it was successful. Hell, it could have harmed the economy, but there were other factors that helped the economy so much that the nation experienced a net gain. As evidenced by the fact that, in a global economy, a majority of countries experienced economi growth during this time period, regardless of whether or not they adopted a flat tax. Therefore, this does not at all prove the effectiveness of a flat tax.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it was successful for several countries. Since no two countries' economies are alike, you could argue that is does prove its effectiveness. Or you could just ignore this fact.

[Simulcast]

I know.

When designing a tax system, I would be most interested in one that provides as much revenue as possible to the government while minimizing the burden on society. You seem to completely disregard the former and only care about the latter in its relation to the top income earners.

You are right in that I am interested in the people who drive our economy, but this doesn't mean I don't care for the little guy. I have yet to see how a flat tax would be harmful to society.

[paper halo]

Just stumbled across this (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201008/why-are-the-poor-more-generous) handy article.

[Scrandon]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it was successful for several countries. Since no two countries' are alike, you could argue that is does prove its effectiveness. Or you could just ignore this fact.

See that's the problem with people who don't know the difference between causality and correlation. You don't consider other factors at work; there are literally hundreds of other factors that go into the functioning of an economy. It's not just taxes, taxes, taxes.

Numbers aren't always as black and white as they appear. It takes knowledge to know how to interpret them.
See: Freakonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics), and the like.

[Scrandon]

You are right in that I am interested in the people who drive our economy, but this doesn't mean I don't care for the little guy. I have yet to see how a flat tax would be harmful to society.

You can't see why taking someone who is just making it by in a 10% tax bracket, and bumping them up to a 20% tax bracket would hurt them? And why do this? To ease the tax burden on people who don't need to be helped? What the fuck.

[Simulcast]

See that's the problem with people who don't know the difference between causality and correlation. You don't consider other factors at work; there are literally hundreds of other factors that go into the functioning of an economy. It's not just taxes, taxes, taxes.

Numbers aren't always as black and white as they appear. It takes knowledge to know how to interpret them.
See: Freakonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics), and the like.

Interesting. It seems that all of these countries are then affected by similar factors.

I'll take a look at what you are saying, but for now it seems like a convenient way to trump an argument you don't agree with.

[Simulcast]

You can't see why taking someone who is just making it by in a 10% tax bracket, and bumping them up to a 20% tax bracket would hurt them? And why do this? To ease the tax burden on people who don't need to be helped? What the fuck.

Seems like you are focusing on only one factor here. There are literally hundreds of factors that go into a person's income and quality of life. It's not all taxes, taxes, taxes.

[Scrandon]

Interesting. It seems that all of these countries are then affected by similar factors.

I'll take a look at what you are saying, but for now it seems like a convenient way to trump an argument you don't agree with.
However it may seem, I highly recommend the book. It specifically applies to this situation, but on top of that, it's also a bestseller, so you know it has some interesting stuff.
Seems like you are focusing on only one factor here. There are literally hundreds of factors that go into a person's income and quality of life. It's not all taxes, taxes, taxes.
You were talking about the driving forces of the economy.
I am talking about how someone on min. wage is going to make their next rent.
Not the same my friend.

[Simulcast]

You can't see why taking someone who is just making it by in a 10% tax bracket, and bumping them up to a 20% tax bracket would hurt them? And why do this? To ease the tax burden on people who don't need to be helped? What the fuck.

From the article I posted:

Family-Friendly. All flat tax proposals have one "loophole." Households receive a generous exemption based on family size. For instance, a family of four would not begin to pay tax until its annual income reached more than $30,000.[6]

Guess you missed that part.

[Simulcast]

However it may seem, I highly recommend the book. It specifically applies to this situation, but on top of that, it's also a bestseller, so you know it has some interesting stuff.

You were talking about the driving forces of the economy.
I am talking about how someone on min. wage is going to make their next rent.
Not the same my friend.

Always willing to learn. Thanks for the rec.

[Simulcast]

You were talking about the driving forces of the economy.
I am talking about how someone on min. wage is going to make their next rent.
Not the same my friend.

How will their rent be affected by a comprehensive reform like this? How will the level of their income be affected? These are other factors to consider beyond how someone will make their next rent, which assumes the only change garnered will be a rise in their tax rate.

[crackedthesky]

You have no idea what a flat tax is, do you? A flat tax means that everyone pays the same tax rate. so, by your example, if you and the bear are paying 5 bananas (25% of your income), then the rich guy is paying 25% of 350, which is 87.5 bananas. So yes, under your model, a flat tax would work. A flat tax is a great idea.


The other guy said he'd pay 87.5 bananas because it's 25% of his income and he realized you don't know what a flat tax is. He does know what it is.

Read up on it here (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax).

I was trying to simplify it for someone who obviously knows nothing about anything.
And anyway, again, 87.5 plus ten is not 100, so my example still works, despite your cute little technicality. Learn to fucking count.

90% of the wealth of this nation belongs to less than ten percent of its population. A flat tax would not work. I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea, a marvelously ideal idea, if the money was there. But it isn't. Thus, we turn to those who have the money to pay for it.

[Scrandon]

From the article I posted:

Guess you missed that part.

You might as well advocate a tax free government, because from what you're going to be collecting under this system, you might as well have no taxes.

It was posted that the top 1% of earners pay 40% of taxes, at a rate of... let's say, 35%. You would probably have to set the Flat Tax at somewhere around the 30% mark just to make up for the loss of revenue from the top earners.

So you end up tripling the rates of the lower income earners, and all that is accomplished is somewhere around a five percent decrease for the wealthy people who wouldn't even notice it.

[Scrandon]

How will their rent be affected by a comprehensive reform like this? How will the level of their income be affected? These are other factors to consider beyond how someone will make their next rent, which assumes the only change garnered will be a rise in their tax rate.

I would be a complete fuckin' fool to assume that their income will increase as well with the introduction of a Flat tax as, again, you have provided no causal link between Flat tax introduction and economic growth.

[Simulcast]

I was trying to simplify it for someone who obviously knows nothing about anything.
And anyway, again, 87.5 plus ten is not 100, so my example still works, despite your cute little technicality. Learn to fucking count.

90% of the wealth of this nation belongs to less than ten percent of its population. A flat tax would not work. I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea, a marvelously ideal idea, if the money was there. But it isn't. Thus, we turn to those who have the money to pay for it.

You don't know how it works. 87.5 is 25% of 350. Just like you had to pay 25% of 20 and so did the bear. You all paid the same tax rate. That's the point of a flat tax. The rate is the same from everybody. Adding up 5 plus 5 plus 87.5, or 90, doesn't mean anything. What exactly is the significance of 100 bananas?

[Scrandon]

We should probably just forget the analogy haha

[crackedthesky]

You don't know how it works. 87.5 is 25% of 350. Just like you had to pay 25% of 20 and so did the bear. You all paid the same tax rate. That's the point of a flat tax. The rate is the same from everybody. Adding up 5 plus 5 plus 87.5, or 90, doesn't mean anything. What exactly is the significance of 100 bananas?

Okay, seriously? I have to simplify this even further?
You're trying to use my own argument against me by pointing out a technicality that was used for simplicity's sake (you might as well have said "YOU KNOW NOTHING, WE DON'T PAY WITH BANANAS, MORON") and even under your technicality, my point stands. In my example, if we don't make 100 bananas per day, we all die. Your flat tax that "works" and is "a good idea" only added us up to 97.5 bananas per day. So the technicality you tried to use against me only proved my point, that it wouldn't work because it didn't add up.

I know what a flat tax is. This was obviously very hyperbolic. I was hoping the guy I originally quoted (whose solution to the tax problem is to just "don't ever buy anything") might understand it in a simplified form, but it went way over his head. Looks like it did the same for you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you overlooked the part where I said it had to add up to 100.

But again, it's an already ridiculous analogy, and your technicality doesn't even work against my favor in it, so perhaps we should move on.

[crackedthesky]

Again, in theory, the flat tax is perfect and perfectly fair. But the money just is not there. Since it isn't, the burden of paying the extra goes to those who actually have it, i.e. the wealthiest 3% of people in the country, because the other 97% all combined do not have it.

But what does it matter? The poorest people hardly pay their taxes, as do the wealthiest (http://philosophers-stone.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/how_the_rich_do.html). So maybe both of those parties should stop bitching and just do what they're already doing, and we can all get along fine.

We might might even kill two birds with one stone, and decrease the defecit Republicans love whining about.

[Scrandon]

The difference between everyone paying the same amount and everyone paying the same rate is hardly a technicality.

[Simulcast]

Okay, seriously? I have to simplify this even further?
You're trying to use my own argument against me by pointing out a technicality that was used for simplicity's sake (you might as well have said "YOU KNOW NOTHING, WE DON'T PAY WITH BANANAS, MORON") and even under your technicality, my point stands. In my example, if we don't make 100 bananas per day, we all die. Your flat tax that "works" and is "a good idea" only added us up to 97.5 bananas per day. So the technicality you tried to use against me only proved my point, that it wouldn't work because it didn't add up.

I know what a flat tax is. This was obviously very hyperbolic. I was hoping the guy I originally quoted (whose solution to the tax problem is to just "don't ever buy anything") might understand it in a simplified form, but it went way over his head. Looks like it did the same for you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you overlooked the part where I said it had to add up to 100.

But again, it's an already ridiculous analogy, and your technicality doesn't even work against my favor in it, so perhaps we should move on.


I did overlook that. You assumed that a flat tax meant that everyone pays 15 bananas, regardless of income.

The top 1% also has most of the money. Think a flat tax would work? Here:
Let's say you, me, and The Bear all live on an island together. In order for our island to not get blown up by other countries, we must pay 100 bananas per day.
Bear makes 20 bananas per day, and I make 20 bananas per day. You make 350 bananas per day. It takes an average of 5 bananas per day per person just to live.
So we should all just give 15 bananas, right? And we'll all live happily ever after?
That's your example for flat tax. Wrong.

SO obviously you either misspoke, or don't know how a flat tax works. As for your example, who says it has to stay at 25%? why not make the flat tax 26%? then you get 101.4 bananas. With a flat tax. So it would still work. The rich guy pays 91 bananas and the others pay 5.2. Seems to work just fine. How exactly does your example prove flat tax wouldn't work?

[crackedthesky]

The difference between everyone paying the same amount and everyone paying the same rate is hardly a technicality.

In the context of my banana analogy, couple with the fact that the system still didn't work after he corrected it, was. Again, I was trying to dumb it down for an idiot. The guy claims to have a degree in accounting, but then thought 87.5 plus ten was over 100.

And anyway, the whole point is moot. I never said he should pay that many bananas based on rate or amount, I said that's what he should pay so that we'd reach our budget and all be able to live. I didn't even mention whether it was rate or amount, I just gave a number that worked based on the math :shrug:

[crackedthesky]

I did overlook that. You assumed that a flat tax meant that everyone pays 5 bananas, regardless of income. SO obviously you either misspoke, or don't know how a flat tax works. As for your example, who says it has to stay at 25%? why not make the flat tax 26%? then you get 101.4 bananas. With a flat tax. So it would still work. The rich guy pays 91 bananas and the others pay 5.2. Seems to work just fine. How exactly does your example prove flat tax wouldn't work?

Then I misspoke.
I did not say anywhere that the amount of bananas we were all giving was an example of flat tax.
I said that was the number we'd have to give to reach our budget and all be able to eat. I was forming the number based on the total needed, for the purpose of simplicity. I didn't really feel like figuring fractions of bananas out for some guy who suppsoedly has an accounting major but can't seem to understand even simple political concepts.

Anyway your counter-example is a good one, again, if the numbers were there. And while they are in that example, they aren't in the real world. But if you really want to take this even further (and believe me, it's gone quite far enough, I'm getting very tired of talking about bananas and relating them to points I never even made) then add in just one variable: I have two children who also need 5 bananas each per day, but they don't bring any bananas in.
Now the flat tax doesn't work, the numbers aren't there, and 26% kills my children.

As irrelevant as all this is, that's just one variable and it results in two deaths. In the real world, in reality, there are countless variables just like that, and both for and against my point. This was a simplified example for a dummy; and I didn't say flat tax = we all give the same number. May we move on now?

[Simulcast]

Then I misspoke.
I did not say anywhere that the amount of bananas we were all giving was an example of flat tax.
I said that was the number we'd have to give to reach our budget and all be able to eat. I was forming the number based on the total needed, for the purpose of simplicity. I didn't really feel like figuring fractions of bananas out for some guy who suppsoedly has an accounting major but can't seem to understand even simple political concepts.

Anyway your counter-example is a good one, again, if the numbers were there. And while they are in that example, they aren't in the real world. But if you really want to take this even further (and believe me, it's gone quite far enough, I'm getting very tired of talking about bananas and relating them to points I never even made) then add in just one variable:I have two children who also need 5 bananas each per day, but they don't bring any bananas in.
Now the flat tax doesn't work, the numbers aren't there, and 26% kills my children.

As irrelevant as all this is, that's just one variable and it results in two deaths. In the real world, in reality, there are countless variables just like that, and both for and against my point. This was a simplified example for a dummy; and I didn't say flat tax = we all give the same number. May we move on now?

You sure as hell implied it.

Yes we can move on, but one more point before we do. As I stated in an earlier post, all Flat Tax plans have exemptions for families. Until they make a certain amount, they are not taxed at all. In which case to survive in your example, the tax would obviously have to be raised, but then the poor families aren't even being taxed at all. Point being, nothing about your post proves that a flat tax would not work.

[Scrandon]

You sure as hell implied it.

Yes we can move on, but one more point before we do. As I stated in an earlier post, all Flat Tax plans have exemptions for families. Until they make a certain amount, they are not taxed at all. In which case to survive in your example, the tax would obviously have to be raised, but then the poor families aren't even being taxed at all. Point being, nothing about your post proves that a flat tax would not work.

You do realize you're going to be getting next to NO revenue? I'm assuming you're just okay with this... I wouldn't want to live in a country with less government programs then we have now, but I guess that's just me.

[Simulcast]

You do realize you're going to be getting next to NO revenue? I'm assuming you're just okay with this... I wouldn't want to live in a country with less government programs then we have now, but I guess that's just me.


Yeah, in banana land I would only be left with 5 bananas after my 2 kids each eat 5 and I eat 5. Thank god banana land doesn't correspond to the real world.

You do understand that families under a certain level would not be taxed AT ALL, versus the 9-10% they are now.

[Scrandon]

Yeah, in banana land I would only be left with 5 bananas after my 2 kids each eat 5 and I eat 5. Thank god banana land doesn't correspond to the real world.

You do understand that families under a certain level would not be taxed AT ALL, versus the 9-10% they are now.

No, I mean the government is going to have no revenue.

[Simulcast]

No, I mean the government is going to have no revenue.


No, they get 100 bananas.

You cannot prove they would get NO revenue. They get 100 bananas from johnny chimpo, and 2000 from his friend who owns Nike, and neither of them have an incentive to ship those bananas to offshore accounts, since before they were paying 175 and 3850 ( and dodging a lot of it) respectively before the flat tax was imposed. Yes it's less, for only two people, but once thousands and thousand of monkey's stiop avoiding taxes, it adds up fast. His friend makes 7700 bananas, for the record.

I want a fucking banana now.

[crackedthesky]

You sure as hell implied it.

Yes we can move on, but one more point before we do. As I stated in an earlier post, all Flat Tax plans have exemptions for families. Until they make a certain amount, they are not taxed at all. In which case to survive in your example, the tax would obviously have to be raised, but then the poor families aren't even being taxed at all.



Yes, and then this happens:

So you end up tripling the rates of the lower income earners, and all that is accomplished is somewhere around a five percent decrease for the wealthy people who wouldn't even notice it.

In my example (yes, I know I said we'd move on, but this is to further illustrate Scrandon's point) if my family is exempt, that leaves the 26% being too high to work, and then the rate must be raised for both of them, and when it gets to the point where it can be flat for both Bear and the rich dude and I'm exempt, the rich dude is paying almost what I originally had him at anyway. There would be a slight difference in the percentage. But that slight difference would be unnoticeable to the rich guy, whereas Bear would be hit by what feels like a much larger, more weighty difference. In essence, you would be lowering the taxes for the rich (based on what they are before the tax rate) and raising it for the poor. Basically, I don't think there's a way for the flat tax rate to be lower than what the poorer people are already paying, it'd have to be higher (though my major political focus is not in economics, so forgive me if I'm incorrect on that.) So to have a flat tax rate, the taxes on the lower classes would have to go up, all to shave off an unnoticeable amount for the wealthiest. After all is said and done, is it really that much more fair? Especially in light of how many people on both ends of the spectrum don't even pay their taxes at all...


Point being, nothing about your post proves that a flat tax would not work.

Yeah, again, that was hyperbole. You really think I know the secrets of the world and how everything can work out peacefully, and I'm sharing them on a music-based internet forum instead of applying them in the real world?
It was an example for an idiot. I think it served that purpose, even if said idiot only responded with a gross misuse of mathematics and an economic theory consisting of "don't buy anything if you're poor and don't want to pay taxes."

Anyway, I have no further interest in defending the validity of a point I never claimed was valid (and have claimed the contrary of many times now.) I appreciate your passion for the debate and your obviously knowledgeable grasp of the subject at hand (even though I disagree with the end result,) but I think you're really taking it way too seriously.
It was, after all, about bananas.

[Scrandon]

No, they get 100 bananas.

You cannot prove they would get NO revenue. They get 100 bananas from johnny chimpo, and 2000 from his friend who owns Nike, and neither of them have an incentive to ship those bananas to offshore accounts, since before they were paying 175 and 2857 respectively before the flat tax was imposed. His friend makes 5870 bananas, for the record.

I want a fucking banana now.

Ugh, okay, fuck the bananas. In the real world: You are exempting tons of people from taxes and lowering the rate on the top earners which is going to cause a dramatic decrease in tax revenue.

[Scrandon]

Yes, and then this happens:


In my example (yes, I know I said we'd move on, but this is to further illustrate Scrandon's point) if my family is exempt, that leaves the 26% being too high to work, and then the rate must be raised for both of them, and when it gets to the point where it can be flat for both Bear and the rich dude and I'm exempt, the rich dude is paying almost what I originally had him at anyway. There would be a slight difference in the percentage. But that slight difference would be unnoticeable to the rich guy, whereas Bear would be hit by what feels like a much larger, more weighty difference. In essence, you would be lowering the taxes for the rich (based on what they are before the tax rate) and raising it for the poor. Basically, I don't think there's a way for the flat tax rate to be lower than what the poorer people are already paying, it'd have to be higher (though my major political focus is not in economics, so forgive me if I'm incorrect on that.) So to have a flat tax rate, the taxes on the lower classes would have to go up, all to shave off an unnoticeable amount for the wealthiest. After all is said and done, is it really that much more fair? Especially in light of how many people on both ends of the spectrum don't even pay their taxes at all...
Yea, this is what I was trying to tell him as well.



Yeah, again, that was hyperbole. You really think I know the secrets of the world and how everything can work out peacefully, and I'm sharing them on a music-based internet forum instead of applying them in the real world?
It was an example for an idiot. I think it served that purpose, even if said idiot only responded with a gross misuse of mathematics and an economic theory consisting of "don't buy anything if you're poor and don't want to pay taxes."

Anyway, I have no further interest in defending the validity of a point I never claimed was valid (and have claimed the contrary of many times now.) I appreciate your passion for the debate and your obviously knowledgeable grasp of the subject at hand (even though I disagree with the end result,) but I think you're really taking it way too seriously.
It was, after all, about bananas.
That wasn't my quote. lol

[Simulcast]

Ugh, okay, fuck the bananas. In the real world: You are exempting tons of people from taxes and lowering the rate on the top earners which is going to cause a dramatic decrease in tax revenue.


I fucked up, re-read my edit.

[Scrandon]

I fucked up, re-read my edit.

Again, I'm just not convinced about the whole 'tax evasion' and 'economy stimulating' aspects of this debate.

[crackedthesky]

Yea, this is what I was trying to tell him as well.



That wasn't my quote. lol

copy-paste fail on my part, lol. Fixing now.

Back to bananas (ugh and yay:)

For the 100 to be reached, if I'm exempt and bear makes 20 bananas and you make 350, the tax rate would have to be 27%. Then we'd easily fit and we'd all have enough to eat.
The problem?
Now Bear is paying 27% (a seven percent increase from the 20 I had him at to start with) and you've gone down from 35% to 27%. I've successfully lowered taxes for the rich and raised them for the poor, to get a flat tax rate with families exempt. That 8% drop for the richest won't help them at all (they aren't going to spend those bananas, whether their rate is at 35%, 27%, or 75%) but I've just taken bananas from Bear, who arguably needs them more.

I'll say it now, this does not prove the flat tax doesn't work. But is it necessary?
Especially when you consider that, most likely, the rich guy will not be happy with the 8% drop. He'll keep asking for more.

Edit: I can only imagine what people just dropping by this thread must be thinking right now :lol:
We're all madmen, I suppose. This is, after all, the politics forum.

[Simulcast]

copy-paste fail on my part, lol. Fixing now.

Back to bananas (ugh and yay:)

For the 100 to be reached, if I'm exempt and bear makes 20 bananas and you make 350, the tax rate would have to be 27%. Then we'd easily fit and we'd all have enough to eat.
The problem?
Now Bear is paying 27% (a seven percent increase from the 20 I had him at to start with) and you've gone down from 35% to 27%. I've successfully lowered taxes for the rich and raised them for the poor, to get a flat tax rate with families exempt. That 8% drop for the richest won't help them at all (they aren't going to spend those bananas, whether their rate is at 35%, 27%, or 75%) but I've just taken bananas from Bear, who arguably needs them more.

I'll say it now, this does not prove the flat tax doesn't work. But is it necessary?
Especially when you consider that, most likely, the rich guy will not be happy with the 8% drop. He'll keep asking for more.

Pure speculation, but I see your point otherwise. The banana example is too simple to work out all of the variables, but as I said, it doesn't discount flat tax. I think it's viable while others do not. That is okay.

[open mind]

a flat tax would hurt upward mobility, and i think that those who benefit the most from living in this country should pay the most.

i apologize for jumping in and ignoring other arguments.

[crackedthesky]

Pure speculation, but I see your point otherwise. The banana example is too simple to work out all of the variables, but as I said, it doesn't discount flat tax. I think it's viable while others do not. That is okay.

I'm going by what is most likely. But I will say that those arguing for lower taxes and proposing the flat tax are completely incompatible. There's just no way, currently, to go to a flat tax rate without increasing taxes somewhere, and that somewhere is pretty much always going to be the lower classes.
But again, you're right in that it isn't impossible (which I shouldn't have said from the start.) I think it's impractical and unneccesary.

a flat tax would hurt upward mobility, and i think that those who benefit the most from living in this country should pay the most.


That's a rather subjective claim, though.
I can see the wealthy's point. The fact is, they are paying more. The fact stands that they have more, but that in and of itself is arguably not an objective reason to charge them more. When you get down to the barebones version of it, it's almost discrimination. You're treating one group of people one way and another group another way based on their income.
But as I said, it's pretty much an absolute necessity. And the fact that these people pretty much could never even spend all of the money they have in their entire lifetime, while not an objective counterpoint, makes all sympathy pretty much go down the drain. My family can't afford medical bills formy autistic sister (or anyone in the family, really, and the employer-based health care situation prevents us from any other options,) but I get to hear people who could buy my entire family's lives ten times over on top of spending a million dollars every day of their lives and still have enough money to make sure their kids never have to work a day in their life complain that they want more money. And I whole-heartedly believe that if they got their flat tax rate, they'd still want to pay lower taxes.
But again, this is based on my opinion, and isn't necessarily an actual reason for not having the flat tax rate. I think the first part of my post is, however. As things currently are, there's just no way to do it without raising the taxes on the lowest classes. So, naturally, the slack has to be picked up by someone, and the only ones capable are the wealthiest 3% :shrug:

Yeah, their tax rates could be lowered. But not without someone else's being raised. The argument then shifts to whether it's right to raise the poor's taxes to lower the rich's, which is a much more subjective, opinion-based debate.

[open mind]

That's a rather subjective claim, though.
I can see the wealthy's point. The fact is, they are paying more. The fact stands that they have more, but that in and of itself is arguably not an objective reason to charge them more. When you get down to the barebones version of it, it's almost discrimination. You're treating one group of people one way and another group another way based on their income.
But as I said, it's pretty much an absolute necessity. And the fact that these people pretty much could never even spend all of the money they have in their entire lifetime, while not an objective counterpoint, makes all sympathy pretty much go down the drain. My family can't afford medical bills formy autistic sister (or anyone in the family, really, and the employer-based health care situation prevents us from any other options,) but I get to hear people who could buy my entire family's lives ten times over on top of spending a million dollars every day of their lives and still have enough money to make sure their kids never have to work a day in their life complain that they want more money. And I whole-heartedly believe that if they got their flat tax rate, they'd still want to pay lower taxes.
But again, this is based on my opinion, and isn't necessarily an actual reason for not having the flat tax rate. I think the first part of my post is, however. As things currently are, there's just no way to do it without raising the taxes on the lowest classes. So, naturally, the slack has to be picked up by someone, and the only ones capable are the wealthiest 3% :shrug:

Yeah, their tax rates could be lowered. But not without someone else's being raised. The argument then shifts to whether it's right to raise the poor's taxes to lower the rich's, which is a much more subjective, opinion-based debate.

i dunno man, the richest people get the most government access, large amounts of corporate welfare, bailouts, huge government contracts, and pay much less taxes then they used to....so i think it's only fair that they pay for that.

[crackedthesky]

i dunno man, the richest people get the most government access, large amounts of corporate welfare, bailouts, huge government contracts, and pay much less taxes then they used to....so i think it's only fair that they pay for that.

Poor people get a lot of that, too. I don't know how the two compare, though.
But yeah, I agree. And I posted a link to an article earlier featuring a quote by Ben Stein (very famously Republican) and Warren Buffet on how the rich actually don't even pay taxes as high as they seem to, based on things like capital gains, etc.

And there's always the good old Swiss bank account, too.

[open mind]

Poor people get a lot of that, too. I don't know how the two compare, though.
But yeah, I agree. And I posted a link to an article earlier featuring a quote by Ben Stein (very famously Republican) and Warren Buffet on how the rich actually don't even pay taxes as high as they seem to, based on things like capital gains, etc.

And there's always the good old Swiss bank account, too.

the poor only get welfare out of what i listed.....and corporations recieve more welfare then the poor.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

[crackedthesky]

the poor only get welfare out of what i listed.....and corporations recieve more welfare then the poor.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

Oh yes, the wealthy are more than capable of clearing our entire defecit.
But Republicans would prefer to do away with taxes entirely, and then take care of the defecit and the resulting absence of all money whatsoever the same way they plan to take care of everything:
Magic.