Glenn Beck smashes Ben Stein

[chaosB4storm]

I was watching Glenn Beck last night and he was interviewing Ben Stein. The issue was that Ben Stein, the economist, was saying that The US government should tax the hell out of the rich people of the country because they can afford it.

"A thief robs the bank because that's where the money is. Likewise, we should tax the rich; that's where the money is." - Ben Stein (not quite the exact quote)

Glenn Beck made Stein look like a fool when he used his 'Of course they can afford it, but why should we tax them so much more? They earned their money.' stance.

Now, I know Stein is a very intelligent person, and also a right winger (which is important because they would generally be against taxing the rich so much more), so he obviously understands Beck's stance.

His idea against Beck's stance is "Your way won't work", NOT "Your way is wrong". He doesn't believe it will work because of the current US economy. He may believe that Beck's stance is the correct one, but under the circumstances it will simply not work. It seems he has given up on doing things the correct way, and must settle for plan B.

This is a classic example of being a realist. At first glance Stein's stance seems incredibly wrong, but maybe he is just being realistic.

I couldn't find the interview on youtube, but Ben Stein is completely torn apart by Beck.

Thoughts?

[Machu505]

I hate Glenn Beck. Ben Stein wins on this issue.

[Burning Star IV]

I miss Win Ben Stein's Money.

[Machu505]

I've been sayin' this shit for years.

[Mitch]

I can not stand Glenn Beck.

[chaosB4storm]

I miss Win Ben Stein's Money.

Me too.

I like Glenn Beck though, actually.

[oldwirehands]

Corporations should be taxed like crazy. The government initially steals way more money from the average American workers, through income tax, than it does the corporate monsters who are destroying America.

[Burning Star IV]

Glenn Beck is a fuckwad.

[Nevuk]

Corporations should be taxed like crazy. The government initially steals way more money from the average American workers, through income tax, than it does the corporate monsters who are destroying America.
Corporations almost always fall into the highest tax bracket and are the only group capable of having revenue taxed multiple times.

[chaosB4storm]

Corporations almost always fall into the highest tax bracket and are the only group capable of having revenue taxed multiple times.

Yes.

[Nevuk]

Now, why a corporation is considered a person on the other hand, is kind of creepy.

[redalibi]

Glenn Beck made Stein look like a fool when he used his 'Of course they can afford it, but why should we tax them so much more? They earned their money.' stance.


I like this quote. I think it's funny when I tell people we should tax the rich and they *gasp*. I understand they earned their money, but so do middle class. So who really needs the tax break and who has more leverage to keep things equalized? Anyone who agrees with everything from Glenn..then wow

[TK]

I hate Glenn Beck. Ben Stein wins on this issue.
This.

[mattybobviously]

Both of these men are equally fucking ridiculous, let's not forget Ben Stein's bullshit documentary from earlier this year.

[bung]

Tax everyone, regardless of income, at the exact same rate.

I have no idea who Glenn Beck is. Though I do like that, in his own analogy, Ben Stein compares the government to a thief in his plan.

[Nevuk]

Tax everyone, regardless of income, at the exact same rate.

I have no idea who Glenn Beck is. Though I do like that, in his own analogy, Ben Stein compares the government to a thief in his plan.
That would make sense if everyone made the same amount of money.

[oldwirehands]

Corporations almost always fall into the highest tax bracket and are the only group capable of having revenue taxed multiple times.

I can't remember the exact numbers but the government makes far more money off of the average worker than corporate business through taxes. I want to say there was a 600 billion dollar different.

[bung]

That would make sense if everyone made the same amount of money.

Edit, nevermind, I completely read the first post wrong.

[Nevuk]

I can't remember the exact numbers but the government makes far more money off of the average worker than corporate business through taxes. I want to say there was a 600 billion dollar different.
Probably true. Btw, the way for a company to be taxed twice is if they are paying dividends, so the money effectively taken out of money given to an average person (Yeah, not all dividend investors are average, but its slightly more likely).

[open mind]

Now, why a corporation is considered a person on the other hand, is kind of creepy.

haha, yeah.....it's crazy how there was never any real legal case that decided this, and the whole "corporations are people" argument hinges on a misprint that everyone just decided to run with.


it should be noted that the rich don't always earn their money.

[Nevuk]

haha, yeah.....it's crazy how there was never any real legal case that decided this, and the whole "corporations are people" argument hinges on a misprint that everyone just decided to run with.


it should be noted that the rich don't always earn their money.
hmm, in fact it could easily be said that they almost never do. Generally they inherit it. Rags to riches is incredibly rare, and even in these cases its most frequently done with investing, being a land-lord, etc. Oh sure, they all require work, but you probably do more movement in a single day of fast food than in a year of stock analyst. So its hard to say they "earn" their money.

[miketrondson]

I appreciate Glenn Beck now more than ever. I find myself super liberal at times, but then I agree with stuff Beck says. That dude does what Fox Network figureheads can't.

[chaosB4storm]

The only way Capitalism can ever work (without being ridiculously inhumane) is by taxing those who suceed in order to compensate those who don't.

I would appreciate it if you defined "ridiculously inhumane".

[GuitarR0cker1]

Both Beck and Stein have terrible politics. Stein is more realistic but still has a terrible ideology but Beck is more idealistic and still has a terrible ideology. Same shitty views.

[Broken Parachute]

Ben Stein wins at everything just for being Ben Stein.

[saysmydoctor]

Wait, wait, wait, if I understand the thread starter, you agree with Glenn Beck's regressive tax beliefs?


AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA

[se1046]

I can't remember the exact numbers but the government makes far more money off of the average worker than corporate business through taxes. I want to say there was a 600 billion dollar different.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but the top 25% of income earners actually pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The rich pay all the tax already. The top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of all federal income taxes. That happens to be up 2% from when Bush took the office.

[chaosB4storm]

Wait, wait, wait, if I understand the thread starter, you agree with Glenn Beck's regressive tax beliefs?


AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA

his tax beliefs follow the definition of "fair", which is something that should be strived for in my opinion. However, Stein's beliefs are a lot more likely to work.

[saysmydoctor]

Regressive taxes are not fair, idiot.

[chaosB4storm]

Regressive taxes are not fair, idiot.

It is not fair to tax a wealthy person such a substantial amount more. The more equal the taxing is, the fairer it is to the individual. Taxing the rich more may make for a better society, but from a strictly "fair" viewpoint, you are essentially penalizing people for making/having more money.

[saysmydoctor]

You are right, let's tax those with no money even more so they have even less to live on--that's more fair--right? Wrong, dipshit.

[The_kok]

I love the title of this thread, suggesting that Glenn Beck has any ability to intellectually "smash" people.

(Regardless of political stances that Glenn Beck takes, of course)

[oldwirehands]

I don't know where you get your numbers, but the top 25% of income earners actually pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The rich pay all the tax already. The top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of all federal income taxes. That happens to be up 2% from when Bush took the office.

What I stated went completely over your head.

[ghostyouare]

Regressive taxes are not fair, idiot.
fair? We should work on whats fair and not what works? -- Im not advocate for any such method but fairness really shouldnt have much value. Furthermore you could take the stance that its not fair to punish some one for getting ahead in life by getting an education and a good job.

[chaosB4storm]

You are right, let's tax those with no money even more so they have even less to live on--that's more fair--right? Wrong, dipshit.

The strongest/smartest survives is fair, so you are correct. Your insults don't change anything.

If everyone has equal rights to use what the taxes go towards, then everyone would pay equally if we were interested in fairness. I don't think you know what fair means.

To make it easier you could narrow it down. Let's take the example of public school. Everyone has equal rights to attend public school. Your level of wealth does not change this right in any way. However, rich people pay more taxes, and therefore, pay more for public school than poor people. This is an example of fair from your point of view.

Take this example. A rich person and a poor person go to a convenience store for bread. Both individuals pay an equal price for a loaf because the store owner does not discriminate against rich people. This is an example of fair from my point of view.

Once again, this does not mean we should run our country in a way that is fair to the richest people, it is only meant to prove that taxing the rich more is not fair. It might be more efficient and intelligent from a societal view, but this does not increase its fairness.

It doesn't always have to be about fairness though (which is what you should agree with me on instead of arguing that your way is fair). Your reply suggests that I want to tax the poor people more (or the same amount as rich people, I'm actually not entirely sure which one you meant); this is an incorrect assumption, as I have never said that. All I am saying is that the correct way to run your country isn't neccessarily the fairest.

[chaosB4storm]

fair? We should work on whats fair and not what works? -- Im not advocate for any such method but fairness really shouldnt have much value. Furthermore you could take the stance that its not fair to punish some one for getting ahead in life by getting an education and a good job.

I think the best way to run your country is the fairest way that works.

Stein's argument is that the rich people can afford it, and this is true. He did not say it is fair. He said they can afford it.

It's like saying that Person A with 99 in a course should give a few of his marks to Person B that has a 76. Maybe Person B needs an 80. Person A can afford to reduce his average to 95, and ultimately give Person B an 80. Is it fair? Most definitely not. They both took the same tests, were taught the same things, and were assigned the same homework. It is fair to leave Person A and Person B at 99 and 76 respectively.

[doubletrue]

i may be wrong, but i think our country has the highest income tax rate than any other industrialized nation at 35% i think.

[chaosB4storm]

I love the title of this thread, suggesting that Glenn Beck has any ability to intellectually "smash" people.

(Regardless of political stances that Glenn Beck takes, of course)

If you watched the show, Ben Stein did look like a fool. Beck probably didn't intellectually "smash" him, but he really did make him look foolish (regardless of whether or not he was right). It didn't help that he had another person on the show attacking Stein also.

[EasySkankin]

If everyone has equal rights to use what the taxes go towards, then everyone would pay equally if we were interested in fairness. I don't think you know what fair means.

since when does everyone have the equal opportunity to decide what taxes go towards? Rich people in general have been notorious throughout human history for having a very manipulative hand in government.

If they lobby for costly and inhumane ventures, it's only fair that they pay their toll for all the shit they make everyone else go through.

[windmillninja]

You are right, let's tax those with no money even more so they have even less to live on--that's more fair--right? Wrong, dipshit.

When the hell did he say that?

[FScott]

Why not just go with what works. When's the last time conservative taxation balanced the budget and how was it implemented. When was the last time liberal taxation balanced the budget and how was it implemented. I don't think a Republican has managed an economic surplus in over 30 years (Regan tripled the national debt with his brokenomics) while Bill Clinton left office with a fiscal surplus of 127 million dollars.

"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace."
--House Speaker Tip O'Neill, after a meeting with Reagan, November 23, 1981

[chaosB4storm]

When the hell did he say that?

Thank you.

[chaosB4storm]

Why not just go with what works. When's the last time conservative taxation balanced the budget and how was it implemented. When was the last time liberal taxation balanced the budget and how was it implemented. I don't think a Republican has managed an economic surplus in over 30 years (Regan tripled the national debt with his brokenomics) while Bill Clinton left office with a fiscal surplus of 127 million dollars.

"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace."
--House Speaker Tip O'Neill, after a meeting with Reagan, November 23, 1981

Good point. A successful economy must work. That is obviously mandatory and I agree with you completely. However, the perfect economy would work while being as fair as possible. That is, everyone would be taxed as equally as possible. Some people are incapable of making money, and am I for denying them health care? Of course not. Everyone should have equal rights to what the taxes are being spent on. This shows that it is impossible for everyone to pay equally for what they are recieving, so 100% fairness is out of the question. Success comes first; fairness is second.

Also, we should all realise that it takes the same mathematical error to put a country into debt as it does to create a fiscal surplus. A surplus does mean that we were overtaxed. This is not directed at bashing Clinton, but the best outcome is breaking even, not a surplus. However, it is probably best to aim for a small surplus to account for error, but breaking even is ideal.

[chaosB4storm]

since when does everyone have the equal opportunity to decide what taxes go towards? Rich people in general have been notorious throughout human history for having a very manipulative hand in government.

If they lobby for costly and inhumane ventures, it's only fair that they pay their toll for all the shit they make everyone else go through.

I never said that.

And the fact that rich people tend to have more power is still not an argument that taxing them more is fair. There are benefits to being rich; it is not fair to penalize them for this.

[Nevuk]

The top 1% of the population has 44% of the wealth in the nation. The top 2% of the population pays 50% of the taxes (last I heard). Is that fair? No, they aren't paying to their proportion of the wealth.

[windmillninja]

The top 1% of the population has 44% of the wealth in the nation. The top 2% of the population pays 50% of the taxes (last I heard). Is that fair? No, they aren't paying to their proportion of the wealth.

The top 1% pays up to 44% of the tax burden, but only accounts for roughly 21% of the total gross income.

[Nevuk]

The top 1% pays up to 44% of the tax burden, but only accounts for roughly 21% of the total gross income.
Gross Income is different from what I was referring to.
The top 10% of the country in america had 69.8 % of the wealth in 2000 (http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/discussion-papers/2008/en_GB/dp2008-03/ ). The top 1% had 32.7% total (I remembered the wrong figure) and payed 34% of the taxes while the top 10% paid 66% of the taxes. However, since Bush altered all this shit I don't think there's been a large study into the effects, but in 2000 it seems pretty fair.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm not sure why we would look at percentages to determine what is fair. Taxes go towards everyone, so it is fair that everyone would pay the same amount.

Pretend there are two people in a class. Person A is very intelligent, and Person B has a relativeley low ability to reason. Let's say Person A has the ability to obtain 100% in the course if he does his absolute best, while Person B could only ever manage to get a maximum of 80%. Which of the following is fair:

1. To get the credit, they both must achieve a 50% average.

OR

2. To achieve the credit, Person A must get 50%, but Person B must get 40%.

Option 1 is obviously fair, and option 2 is not. The opposing side might say that, in option 1, Person A isn't giving a proportionate amount of time and effort. The flaw in this argument is that there is a set level of success that must take place for an individual to continue study and obtain the appropriate occupation he is studying for. In this case, the set amount is 50%. Unintelligent people simply must try harder than intelligent ones. That is fair. Likewise, there is a set level of taxation that must take place for an individual to keep the country working. A set amount, and not a percentage. Not option 2. Poor people simply must try harder than wealthy ones. That would be fair.

You might also say that it is not the poor person's fault that he cannot earn as much for whatever reason. Well, is it my fault that I can't play baseball as well as Vernon Wells? After all, I want to be a professional baseball player. Is this unfair? If it were possible, would you want skilled people to transfer some skill to the people with no talent? Does that fit into your definition of fair? Should the talented people, the genuises, and the wealthy people try to level the playing field? Am I deserving of their smarts, skills, and money? No, it is theirs. Whether they were born with it, earned it, or inherited it is irrelevent; it is theirs to keep.

[x togepi x]

i always like it when rich people whine that it's unfair to claim that they should shoulder a bigger burden of taxes and then turn around and tell a poor person that the reason they're poor is because life isn't fair.

[chaosB4storm]

i always like it when rich people whine that it's unfair to claim that they should shoulder a bigger burden of taxes and then turn around and tell a poor person that the reason they're poor is because life isn't fair.

Aren't they right on both accounts, though? The difference is that, in the second case, people are born with a certain level of ability because of intellectual and monetary potential. This can not be helped. This is a fundamentally unfair part of life, right? You were born with a certain amount of potential, and no one can ever change this. People that aren't as intelligent as you would generally have a lower potential. It can be called unfair, but it is fundamental; it cannot be changed.

The first case, where we give rich people a bigger burden, is also unfair. The difference is, the country has decided to implement an unfair policy. This isn't fundamental, this unfair situation was chosen.

So I would say they aren't being hypocritical because one situation is fundamentally unchangeable.

[sayyes]

So, I would love to be taxed less, but not at the cost of my privately owned company having to pay me less. The economy isn't as simple as the story of Robin Hood.

[Nevuk]

Intelligence has almost no correlation to wealth. A fucking dumbass can do real estate flipping, in fact it makes the tedium in the effort a bit easier.

[chaosB4storm]

Intelligence has almost no correlation to wealth. A fucking dumbass can do real estate flipping, in fact it makes the tedium in the effort a bit easier.

From personal experience, I have to disagree. I know several people that will not be accomplishing their goals after high school because of their intellectual shortcomings.

If intelligence has no correlation, does work ethic? Does upbringing? Surely something we inherited contributes to our potential.

[Nevuk]

From personal experience, I have to disagree. I know several people that will not be accomplishing their goals after high school because of their intellectual shortcomings.

If intelligence has no correlation, does work ethic? Does upbringing? Surely something we inherited contributes to our potential.
I really don't think work ethic has much to do with it either. I went to the "rich kid" school in my area, the majority of the people there were fucking lazy, and no matter what they do, they'll still wind up being rich, because their families are. Ever read stuff like Rich Dad Poor Dad or Last Man in Babylon? Environment has a lot to do with it, as do connections. This is my honest opinion on the subject : There is no such thing as true class mobility in America. Its a myth, and useful one required in any capitalistic society to justify the insane inequality within it.

The rich call the poor lazy, but look at a rich person's work week compared to a poor person's. Fast food versus stock broker. And to top it all off, members of the lower classes believe that the rich work harder than them, while I have almost never seen this to be the case. What we are told is normal is the exception to the rule.

[x togepi x]

Aren't they right on both accounts, though? The difference is that, in the second case, people are born with a certain level of ability because of intellectual and monetary potential. This can not be helped. This is a fundamentally unfair part of life, right? You were born with a certain amount of potential, and no one can ever change this. People that aren't as intelligent as you would generally have a lower potential. It can be called unfair, but it is fundamental; it cannot be changed.

The first case, where we give rich people a bigger burden, is also unfair. The difference is, the country has decided to implement an unfair policy. This isn't fundamental, this unfair situation was chosen.

So I would say they aren't being hypocritical because one situation is fundamentally unchangeable.

You're ignoring a ton of examples where people have been born into poverty and were never allowed to reach their full potential because of it.


the problem with the bolded is that, like choosing to tax rich people "too much", the same system that props up the cycle of poverty is also also one that was chosen.

[se1046]

i always like it when rich people whine that it's unfair to claim that they should shoulder a bigger burden of taxes and then turn around and tell a poor person that the reason they're poor is because life isn't fair.

The rich already pay more taxes than the poor. The top 25% of people earning income pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The poor don't pay taxes. It's a fact. If you are poor you get money back from the government. Why should people that work just as hard as a poor person to get what they have, have to pay more money to the government? Just because they are rich? That's ridiculous.

[saysmydoctor]

When the hell did he say that?
It's implied.
i always like it when rich people whine that it's unfair to claim that they should shoulder a bigger burden of taxes and then turn around and tell a poor person that the reason they're poor is because life isn't fair.
Indeed.

The rich already pay more taxes than the poor. The top 25% of people earning income pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The poor don't pay taxes. It's a fact. If you are poor you get money back from the government. Why should people that work just as hard as a poor person to get what they have, have to pay more money to the government? Just because they are rich? That's ridiculous.
Such a fact that all those reports that say otherwise enforce it!

[chaosB4storm]

You're ignoring a ton of examples where people have been born into poverty and were never allowed to reach their full potential because of it.


the problem with the bolded is that, like choosing to tax rich people "too much", the same system that props up the cycle of poverty is also also one that was chosen.

The monetary system has a lot of problems. You're right, the system that props up poverty has also been chosen. However, if you're solution is to tax rich people more, your solution is not fair. Going back to my original point, taxing rich people more may be the answer, but it is not fair.

[FScott]

Here is some info that may be of some use:

% of US population/ % of wealth owned
Top 1%/ 38.1%
Top 96-99%/ 21.3%
Top 90-95%/11.5%
Top 80-89%/ 12.5%
Top 60-79% /11.9%
General 40-59%/ 4.5%
Bottom 40% /0.2%

In this figure, it shows that the top 5% of the country actually possess about 60% of the nation’s wealth. Below is the 2000-2006 breakdown of income tax distribution, as supplied by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Income Tax Bracket
0 – 7,550 -10%
7,550 – 30,650- 15%
30,650 – 61,850- 25%
61,850 – 94,225- 28%
94,225 – 168,275- 33%
168,275 – anything above 35%

This current “progressive” tax requires people who make anything over $168,275 to pay the highest percentage of 35%. The catch is that it doesn’t matter if they make $168,275 a year, or a billion dollars. They still pay 35%. This places a local business owner who had a solid year and Bill Gates in the same tax bracket.

[Love As Arson]

However, if you're solution is to tax rich people more, your solution is not fair. Going back to my original point, taxing rich people more may be the answer, but it is not fair.
How is this unfair? This is a country in which the average CEO's wage has increased to about two hundred times that of the average worker, while that worker, in the past thirty years, has seen their wages stagnate? What's more, is it even fair that the wealthy exist? Presumably, in a fair society, wealth wouldn't be concentrated; rather, there would be an equitable distribution of wealth.

[chaosB4storm]

How is this unfair? This is a country in which the average CEO's wage has increased to about two hundred times that of the average worker, while that worker, in the past thirty years, has seen their wages stagnate? What's more, is it even fair that the wealthy exist? Presumably, in a fair society, wealth wouldn't be concentrated; rather, there would be an equitable distribution of wealth.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is unfair because the extra money you are taxing the rich is THEIR money. It is unfair to be penalized on the basis that you are able to have more money.

To the bolded part:

Your communist society is not fair at all. In your society, people without jobs have the same amount of money as people with jobs. Hmm, why would I get a job if I could have the same amount of money without one? This society crumbles instantly.
Furthermore, your society does not reward intelligence, work ethic, or ability.

[Love As Arson]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is unfair because the extra money you are taxing the rich is THEIR money. It is unfair to be penalized on the basis that you are able to have more money.
Considering that society is oriented around, and identifies its health by, how well the rich are doing, it seems fair.



Your communist society is not fair at all. In your society, people without jobs have the same amount of money as people with jobs.
Who says money would even exist?


Hmm, why would I get a job if I could have the same amount of money without one? This society crumbles instantly.
You're confusing communist society with capitalist society. In the latter, all those who work get nothing, while those who do nothing get everything. And if you're going to use the American dream argument, at least understand that the majority of wealth is inherited, so the rich today were likely born rich, which entails all sorts of opportunities.


Furthermore, your society does not reward intelligence, work ethic, or ability.
American workers work harder than most other workers in industrialized countries, and this has tended to increase, yet have seen their share of the wealth decrease. How is it the case that they are being rewarded? Furthermore, you're making the mistake of associating wealth with intelligence, work ethic and ability. By that logic, Paris Hilton is a hardworking genius.

[EasySkankin]

I never said that.

And the fact that rich people tend to have more power is still not an argument that taxing them more is fair. There are benefits to being rich; it is not fair to penalize them for this.
Taxation isn't based on how much money you have but the amount of representation by the government

you say the same dumb shit over and over again and you fail to give any actual reasoning for this. How is it unfair? what IS fair?

[chaosB4storm]

Taxation isn't based on how much money you have but the amount of representation by the government

you say the same dumb shit over and over again and you fail to give any actual reasoning for this. How is it unfair? what IS fair?

Untrue.

And I already have explained what fair is. Look further back. Fair is everyone paying equally for the tax benefits they recieve.

The things that taxes go towards are for every citizen of the ocuntry. Therefore, everyone should pay equally for them in a fair country.

[chaosB4storm]

How can you possibly say I haven't given any reasoning? That's just absolutely ridiculous.

[x togepi x]

The rich already pay more taxes than the poor. The top 25% of people earning income pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The poor don't pay taxes. It's a fact. If you are poor you get money back from the government. Why should people that work just as hard as a poor person to get what they have, have to pay more money to the government? Just because they are rich? That's ridiculous.

The reason poor people get money back from the government is they need that extra money to survive and stay off government aid even more. I realize the poor don't generally pay income taxes because my family is one of those families.

I mean what, should we start taking more income from poor families so they have problems making ends meet and have to start getting on welfare even more than they do now?

They don't pay taxes "just because they're rich". They pay taxes because they can afford to, and the more money a person makes, they more they can afford to comfortably give away to the government. They should be getting taxed more as they control more money.

It's just like property taxes. You own more land, cars, etc., you pay more property taxes.

[chaosB4storm]

The reason poor people get money back from the government is they need that extra money to survive and stay off government aid even more. I realize the poor don't generally pay income taxes because my family is one of those families.

I mean what, should we start taking more income from poor families so they have problems making ends meet and have to start getting on welfare even more than they do now?

They don't pay taxes "just because they're rich". They pay taxes because they can afford to, and the more money a person makes, they more they can afford to comfortably give away to the government. They should be getting taxed more as they control more money.

It's just like property taxes. You own more land, cars, etc., you pay more property taxes.

Exactly. There is very good reason to tax rich people more.

[EasySkankin]

Untrue.

That's not how our government has done it's taxes, but that is the concept behind how people should be taxed

And I already have explained what fair is. Look further back. Fair is everyone paying equally for the tax benefits they recieve.

how?

The things that taxes go towards are for every citizen of the ocuntry. Therefore, everyone should pay equally for them in a fair country.

However, the people who decide what the specifics are for the things taxes go for aren't the same as the majority of people who pay them, which is unfair.

[se1046]

Exactly. There is very good reason to tax rich people more.

Or we could get rid of B.S. government spending like welfare.

[x togepi x]

Or we could get rid of B.S. government spending like welfare.

why do you hate the poor?

[loveisdead]

Or we could get rid of B.S. government spending like welfare.
This is the example you pull up when you talk of b.s. government spending.

[shit stroll]

cutting the military budget in half seems like a better idea than slashing spending on social programs.

[loveisdead]

cutting the military budget in half seems like a better idea than slashing spending on social programs.
The voice of reason.

[chaosB4storm]

However, the people who decide what the specifics are for the things taxes go for aren't the same as the majority of people who pay them, which is unfair.

Then your government has a bad budget plan. This does not alter my argument.

[saysmydoctor]

You have no argument, because you don't know the meaning of the word fair.

[loveisdead]

You have no argument, because you don't know the meaning of the word fair.
I think it's best that we just end the argument with him.

[shit stroll]

i'm convinced se1046 is a fake account.

[loveisdead]

i'm convinced se1046 is a fake account.
Nah. He's just a stubborn conservative in a sea of liberals. I think he's a decent enough guy, I just don't agree with anything he says.

[thespearkid]

This thread is amazing.

[saysmydoctor]

Nah. He's just a stubborn conservative in a sea of liberals. I think he's a decent enough guy, I just don't agree with anything he says.
1. Congrats on prestigious.
2, No, this guy is a fucking retard.

[shit stroll]

socialism = total government control.

[se1046]

Nah. He's just a stubborn conservative in a sea of liberals. I think he's a decent enough guy, I just don't agree with anything he says.

Thanks. I may not agree with everyone on this board, but I'm not going to spew hatred like some of the people on here towards someone for having a different political opinion.

[se1046]

cutting the military budget in half seems like a better idea than slashing spending on social programs.

I'd be in favor of that if I felt like our country didn't need to be protected from threats like Iran and Russia.

[EasySkankin]

Then your government has a bad budget plan. This does not alter my argument.

How "good" or "bad" (whatever that means) our government spends our money has nothing to do with the fact that certain economic interests have substantial control on our leaders, therefore, where our money goes.

if you and I were to invest the same proportion of money towards someone who's supposed to have more knowledge and wisdom so we get a good return, and then I (through various means) manipulate him so I get a much much better return than you do, and tweak the institutions to perpetuate this cycle, is that fair?

assuming you agree, then if any tax reforms are made they should be made so the upper classes pay more than the middle and lower classes.

[jawstheme]

The only way Capitalism can ever work (without being ridiculously inhumane) is by taxing those who suceed in order to compensate those who don't.

Completely agree.

[chaosB4storm]

Completely agree.

No one can actually disagree with that statement though I don't think. The differences in people are going to lie on their definition of "ridiculously inhumane".

[chaosB4storm]

How "good" or "bad" (whatever that means) our government spends our money has nothing to do with the fact that certain economic interests have substantial control on our leaders, therefore, where our money goes.

if you and I were to invest the same proportion of money towards someone who's supposed to have more knowledge and wisdom so we get a good return, and then I (through various means) manipulate him so I get a much much better return than you do, and tweak the institutions to perpetuate this cycle, is that fair?

assuming you agree, then if any tax reforms are made they should be made so the upper classes pay more than the middle and lower classes.

The unfairness in this situation is that the government (or wise, knowledgeable guy) is not spending our tax dollars on what the people want. In a democracy, government spending should reflect what the majority of people want equally.

In other words, instead of the guy charging you more money in exchange for being manipulated, the wise man should instead just not be manipulated.

[EasySkankin]

how does that translate and how does that solve the problem at all?

[chaosB4storm]

how does that translate and how does that solve the problem at all?
It's not rocket science man...the solution is for the government to spend taxes on what the majority of people want, and to tax people as equally as possible.

All you have done is say "Well, what if taxes aren't spent democratically. Then taxing people equally isn't fair." The problem with this is that you've added an unfair situation to the mix and then told me that my original idea is unfair because of it.

Its like if I said, "Water is colourless", and your reply was,"The problem is that water can be put in red dye. Is it still colourless then? You're wrong. Water is red."

When I say that taxing people equally is fair, I mean that it is fair in an ideal situation. Part of my definition of an ideal situation is that taxes are spent on what the majority of people want. When I say that water is colourless, I mean that it is colourless in an ideal situation. Part of my definition of an ideal situation is that it is not within a homogeneous mixture.

[EasySkankin]

so you think that at the moment we are in the ideal political situation and everyone's getting just what they want from the government, so taxing everyone equally is now fair?

[chaosB4storm]

Alright, let's say that, like you're saying, rich people have more say on what taxes go towards. So, you think that, for this reason, they should be taxed more.

Then let's say that the idea situation exists, and that everyone has equal say. So, for this reason, everyone should be taxed equally.

Am I correct in saying that we have an agreement: The amount of taxes a person pays should be proportionate to the amount of say they have?

Now, since we can agree on that, let's say that rich people hae moresay (which is what you think). There are two possible solutions:
1. Do not tax people equally anymore to compensate for the wealthy group's overrepesentation. OR
2. Try to equalize the representation of every individual by doing the best we can to spend taxes on what the majority of people want.

2 is a better solution, because it IS a solution. It is a healing process. It works toward solving the overall issue at hand. Option 1 is a only a bandage that covers up the problem, and not really a solution.

[EasySkankin]

You're right about that, however

this entire thread was about taxes and your concept of fair. I stayed within the boundaries of the argument, talking about how taxes should be collected in order to be fair. If I were to discuss how to actually solve problems then I would go beyond taxes and whats fair.

[chaosB4storm]

You're right about that, however

this entire thread was about taxes and your concept of fair. I stayed within the boundaries of the argument, talking about how taxes should be collected in order to be fair. If I were to discuss how to actually solve problems then I would go beyond taxes and whats fair.

True, but this only makes it easier to prove my point.
You must have taken the topic off course when you said "So you believe we are in an idealsituation where we can tax everyone equally?" The situation "we" (which I guess can either meanUSA or Canada) are in right now should not have any value in a discussion about my idea of fairness. If we stick to the concept of fairness, it seems we agree that fair is:

1. Taxes being spent on what the majority of people want(equal representation) AND
2. Everyone being taxed equally for their equal representation.

[EasySkankin]

yup

[chaosB4storm]

cool...lol

[alcoholandirony]

Now, I know Stein is a very intelligent person, and also a right winger (which is important because they would generally be against taxing the rich so much more), so he obviously understands Beck's stance.



Not when it comes to science.

[MusicBox24]

For all of those who think that the "rich" should be taxed more than the poor, I need you to define rich. Are you talking a six-figure income? A seven-figure income? Who do you consider to be "rich"?
And should all of "the rich" be taxed at the same rate, regardless of how much money they make?


Here is some info that may be of some use:



=Income Tax Bracket
0 – 7,550 -10%
7,550 – 30,650- 15%
30,650 – 61,850- 25%
61,850 – 94,225- 28%
94,225 – 168,275- 33%
168,275 – anything above 35%

This current “progressive” tax requires people who make anything over $168,275 to pay the highest percentage of 35%. The catch is that it doesn’t matter if they make $168,275 a year, or a billion dollars. They still pay 35%. This places a local business owner who had a solid year and Bill Gates in the same tax bracket.





This is the problem. Because my family falls into this tax bracket, suddenly we're considered the "rich". This system penalizes those who make over $168,275.

My dad put himself through college by working at UPS full time, while going to school full time. He worked his way up from shit jobs to landing a great job at IBM. How about we penalize him for working hard.

[THCmike]

hmm, in fact it could easily be said that they almost never do. Generally they inherit it. Rags to riches is incredibly rare, and even in these cases its most frequently done with investing, being a land-lord, etc. Oh sure, they all require work, but you probably do more movement in a single day of fast food than in a year of stock analyst. So its hard to say they "earn" their money.

right because the definition of hard work is flipping burgers and running around at a shit job. who ever considered using your brain as hard work anyway.
isn't this whole topic based on the redistribution of wealth?
what if you had busted your ass for years to make a serious living and then one day someone says you need to pay more taxes because a bunch of bums, addicts, and generally lazy people can't pull their own weight. not to say that all middle class people are any of those three things but, when you start to rob the upper class, your taking from the people most likely to donate their hard earned money to legitimate programs that help people in need. programs that should be funded by the private sector and not by the government in my opinion. if you want the rockafellers to pay your rent why don't you forfeit your vote for obama '08 and move to socialist europe and see how well all of your wonderfull utopian brothers are doing.

[x togepi x]

i know you're talking to Nevuk, but if you want to give me enough money to move to "socialist europe", i'd do it in a heartbeat.

[shit stroll]

some people just don't understand the differences between keynesianism and socialism.

[Nevuk]

right because the definition of hard work is flipping burgers and running around at a shit job. who ever considered using your brain as hard work anyway.
isn't this whole topic based on the redistribution of wealth?
I always thought it was about capitalism, and the hierarchy inherent within its system. I am attempting to show that the hierarchy of american wealth is almost entirely arbitrary and unrelated to effort. Redistrubtion of wealth is not something I really care about, other than our doing it and still having hundreds of thousands of homeless makes it seem like there's something wrong. One person's born a paranoid schizophrenic, the other born a rockefeller.

what if you had busted your ass for years to make a serious living and then one day someone says you need to pay more taxes because a bunch of bums, addicts, and generally lazy people can't pull their own weight.
I knew a kid of a really rich family who wanted to draw welfare because of this concept. He was through with almost all of the steps, but only his mother refusing to sign any of the paperwork (to declare him independent) stopped him. Kid had never worked a day in his life. That's the only lazy person I could think of. Bums and addicts are SICK. They are not lazy, the majority of bums are seriously mentally ill, and those addicted to drugs are definitely sick. Do bums really get any money from the upper class, though? I thought they were pretty much considered persona non grata.

not to say that all middle class people are any of those three things but, when you start to rob the upper class, your taking from the people most likely to donate their hard earned money to legitimate programs that help people in need.
you mean their churches? Fuck them. I've been around every social class in this country except for the excessively rich, and almost every one of their donations are based around rather odd factors like "tax write-off" "makes them look good", etc. And truly, fuck donations. I dislike the concept. If you were saying investment, that makes far more sense. No rich person is going to donate to certain causes which genuinely need their money due to the image issues it creates.

programs that should be funded by the private sector and not by the government in my opinion. if you want the rockafellers to pay your rent why don't you forfeit your vote for obama '08 and move to socialist europe and see how well all of your wonderfull utopian brothers are doing.
I'm not voting for Obama, socialism doesn't go far enough for me, its still too far right. And socialism is utopian? Hardly.

[Nevuk]

i know you're talking to Nevuk, but if you want to give me enough money to move to "socialist europe", i'd do it in a heartbeat.
Oddly enough, I wouldn't. I find america's fall far too entertaining to leave it.

[THCmike]

I know there is a lot of diversity on this forum but I have to say it seems like there are lots of you with the idea that the government is there to take care of you and make your life easy. in my opinion, the federal government is there to protect us from foreign invasion, regulate trade and maintain a national infrastructure for transportation and energy. now if you take away any sort of impearialist mentality that has been commonplace since wwII, where we need to give some afghan militant groups weapons to fight the russians or invade a country that we feel is harbouring terrorists, or our bill as american citizens is not so high, therefore leaving the overall tax rate considerably lower. if you leave the owners of wealth with more of it, they will ultimately be more likely to share their wealth through investments into their communities. also consider your privately owned businesses who would be able to afford to pay higher wages and also pay for health care and numerous other fringe benefits for their employees. we could get rid of the need for so many government subsidized programs like social security medicaid food stamps and others as well.
I don't like when everyone makes the rich seem like disgusting sloths who just suck on their trust funds and waste all their time pretending to be socialites or whatever. there are plenty of people who put lots of effort into community programs that help less fortunate people. its just a shame that everyone assumes that filtering all this money through the federal government is a good idea.

[Nevuk]

The principle behind capitalism goes directly against that theory. The way to get rich, the psychological mechanism required is to enjoy having money for the sake of having money. A true capitalist stock climber does not care about how much he can buy with his money, he just wants more of it. The idea that the more money they have, the more likely they are to share it with their community is appallingly ludicrous. The philanthropic wealthy are rare, Gates, etc. Carnegie for example treated his workers horribly, kept them from receiving teh majority of the profits, and instead turned around and dumped it into private libraries. That makes no sense, but its what you are advancing. And besides, the % of taxes that go into welfare programs is ... small. (Unless you count social security.... which leads us to a whole new area)

I'm an anarchist, I don't want the government to give me anything, but if it does I'm not going to say "Oh... take it back!" (For instance I attend a State University). More to the point I don't want it to take anything from me.

[Stinger1921]

fair? We should work on whats fair and not what works? -- Im not advocate for any such method but fairness really shouldnt have much value. Furthermore you could take the stance that its not fair to punish some one for getting ahead in life by getting an education and a good job.


Good shit man. i know since when did life become fair all the sudden. ahha... I understand there are some that have bad things happen to them and college is not an option, but for those who it is.. go there.. get and education.. make more money. .. and quit putting your handout asking the government for money all the damn time.

[Broken Parachute]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gbeck5.gif

[Zachals]

They already tax the rich more: the more money you make, the higher percent you pay. I had a friend who got a slight raise but ended up losing money because of it because the raise put him in the next level of taxes.

[saysmydoctor]

They already tax the rich more: the more money you make, the higher percent you pay. I had a friend who got a slight raise but ended up losing money because of it because the raise put him in the next level of taxes.
:facepalm: