# Tax Questions for Liberals and other Non-conservatives

Discussion in 'Politics' started by synthesizer-patel, Apr 25, 2008.

?

## What do you think of taxation

Poll closed May 25, 2008.

0 vote(s)
0.0%

33.3%

19.0%

47.6%
1. ### OrleanderOH JOY!!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
25,817
a very valid point. Cazzo's 38k a year is what a lot of families live on. I raised my son on half that.

3. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
The upper 20% of the yearly incomes. There's no obfuscation about it. Quite possibly only the very rich can afford to live in Manhattan - that's part of the natural order of things: service gets expensive, talented folks set up shop in Des Moines, Des Moines becomes a better place.

5. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,267
Ok seems like we understand each other

I'm all for exploring alternatives to "traditional" (if that's the right word) welfare/social security solutions, but I won't just give up on them because of a few abusers -I'll never give in to the kind of hoplessness the other poster already has given in to.

If I had that kind of attitude I may as well abolish law enforcement because of the minority of corrupt coppers, abolish democracy because of corrupt politicians, and abolish the armed forces because of the actions of a minority of soldiers.

ps - you ever notice how many conservatives who are positively rabid over welfare spending suddenly turn a blind eye to corrupt cops, and out of cointrol soldiers because they have such a fucking hardon for authoritarianism?

7. ### CazzoRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,031
LOL, where'd that come from ???

Welfare's necessary for those who honestly deserve it.
I'd consider myself center-right, but if a cop's crooked he needs to be punished beyond the usual sentences. A civilized society can't afford to have corrupt law enforcers.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2008
8. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,267
I admire your balls me old left handed leg spinner - in a totally non gay way of course

I have to say though that every single post you have made in this thread is FILLED with ANGER and RESENTMENT and FEAR of and for poor people - go back - read them - you know I'm right.

I have to ask you where does all that all come from?

I live in one of the poorest cities in the UK right now and I see a lot of people who live on welfare - but at the same time I WORK with people from the same kinds of backgrounds as the welfare spongers - and these guys are doing there very best to make something of thier lives, and without a little governmwent welfare assistance for these people that task would be that much harder.
When I see that I haveto ask myself - who am I to begrudge a few bucks in tax to help someone with talent acheive their potential?

why are you soooooooo scared of that?

9. ### OrleanderOH JOY!!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
25,817
I'm not scared. I'm angry that people feel sorry for them. That hard working people need to pay for generations of slackers. If someone needs help, fine, but unless they are physically unable to work they don't need to live on it. I'm angry about the sense of entitlement you think they have a right to.

Go live on a reservation and look where your tax dollars go and what they do with it. You will lose all sense of empathy quickly

10. ### pjdude1219The biscuit has risenValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,459
look i have met people who needed government aid and though they worked there asses off so they wouldn't need it they couldn't. Do you think it right to refer to these people as slackers.

11. ### TW ScottMinister of TechnologyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,149
What about my sister who has borderline personality disorder, OCD, and bipolar. She is physically able to work, yes, but she not stable enough to even when medicated. Even the slightest criticsim is seen an attack on her. She cant sit still, she has wild mood swings and can at times be downright evil According to you she should get a job, but she can't.

Or how about people in an area where the economy has bascially collapsed. It wasn't their fault all the jobs moved away. Now they are stuck becuase if they move they wouldn't be able to get a palce to live.

12. ### Mr. Greality.sysValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,190
Those individuals who can survive competition should.

Those who can't won't.

Nature is a harsh mistress.

Get over it.

If your own natural abilities are inadequate to the singular task of ensuring your personal survival, what makes you think you possess the natural ability to make a claim on my more successful natural abilities to survive -- as if blood sucking leaches are an important part of my own personal survival strategy?

13. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,267
You're over-simplifying the issue - if it was a simple matter of those with the greasest talent and abilities rising to the top regardless of background then you might have a point - but I seriously doubt if you really beleive that fantasy. It is a convenient self-serving lie though.

We used to beleive that kind of natural order stuff in Britain a few hundred years ago before the industrial revolution but we came to realise that it was in fact pure weapons grade baloneyum, and the cost to a society of NOT providing at the very least some kind of basic welfare was far greater that biting the bullet and doing something about it.
To be fair though - the USA is in many cultural and political respects a couple of hundred years behind the rest of the world and europe in particular - simply due to the fact that you're a young nation - so given time, if you don't self-destruct in the process - you'll get there.

Changing the subject slightly, why is it that so many rightys are so rabidly against spending money on public services like welfare, education and health, While at the same time they keep suspiciously silent when their governments are ejaculating hundreds of billion of dollars in the attempt to "protect" us from the "deadly threat" posed by 8 guys, 2 donkeys, and a goat -aka Al Qaida
It seems such a bizzarre double standard to me.

Last edited: Apr 26, 2008
14. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I favor a progressive tax system, but agree that making it simple is desirable as then the economic loss associated with:
(1) many too many lawyers being paid for needless work. (Government wealfare for them, in truth.)
(2) many too many ways for those lawyer to earn their keep by sheltering income of those rich enough to afford them.

All this waste and loss of revenue could be avoided and taxes for the average American could be lower;

However, a flat tax would not achieve this so long as there are so many different types of incomes and so many different types of deduction.

I have given the question of tax design a little thought and suggested a better plan, I think. However, I am sure my effort is still with flaws so I started a thread asking for people to point them out. That thread a mod moved to forum seldom visited for an entirely false reason as several have noted in the thread, but stubbornly no mod has the balls to put it in the Business and Economics thread where I and others who posted in it think it belongs. See plan at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1792841&postcount=1

Messages:
25,817

17. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
I bet I can set up a system under which my natural abilities earn me big money and yours have to sleep under a bridge.

Economic and social systems don't just appear, like the weather. They are set up, and defended. And if they are set up to make life hard for some people, adn these people are prevented by force from changing that setup, the people who benefit from them and defend them have an obligation to ameliorate.

18. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
That was a tax rebate. You know, the money the government already stole from her.

19. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,267
Not that this thread is closed yet, but so far the results show that by a margin of 2-1, Liberals do not support raising taxes for the rich.

No Liberals at all support an overall rise in taxes

I would suggest that we have successfully busted a myth about liberals.

Thanks

20. ### ashurathe Old RightRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,611
Perhaps a myth about the liberals here, but not necessarily about liberals in general. Not that I'm suggesting that your myth is true for liberals in general, just pointing out that you'd need something better than this like a compilation of what most Democrats in office want to do with taxes. Although at the same time, the opposing side would need something similar to prove their point too. :shrug:

21. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,267
your right that its not necessarily a myth - its hard to generalise on such a large group of people - but certainly in my experience of every "liberal" I have ever met it is the case that they don't necessarily favour higher taxes or explicitly taxing the rich more - hence the reason for the poll in the first place - I certainly wasn't in the slightest bit surprised when I checked the results.

I think that one fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals on taxation, is that conservatives tend oppose any raise in taxation regardless of context - in contrast liberals would tend to look at the justification for it and decide on a case by case basis.