Quote:

Original post by MithrandirAmerica, you're on your own.

Shocker. We're used to it. We've gotten to where we are in a mere two and a half centuries under those circumstances.

Quote:

Original post by Quasimojo Quote: Original post by Ftn what if Palin gets to power. She thinks world is 6k year old and final judgement is upon us? Cite please. Seriously. If you're going to make that kind of accusation, surely you have some kind of evidence. I'm a born-again Christian, myself, and I don't believe the world is only 6k years old, so where is that coming from?

"Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools."

Creationism.

Quote:

Original post by irreversibleLike you said, way2lazy2care, the rich could just pay for everyone else's healthcare. But the bottom line is that they don't. And they never will.

Nor should they! Seriously, why should people be penalized for succeeding?? I just don't get the mindset that since someone else has more money than I, they should have to give me some of it.

Quote:

Original post by phresnel Quote: Original post by Quasimojo Quote: Original post by Ftn what if Palin gets to power. She thinks world is 6k year old and final judgement is upon us? Cite please. Seriously. If you're going to make that kind of accusation, surely you have some kind of evidence. I'm a born-again Christian, myself, and I don't believe the world is only 6k years old, so where is that coming from? "Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools."

No reference to a 6k-year-old world there.

Quote:

Original post by phresnelCreationism.

Wikipedia is merely a particular person's take on the matter. It's hardly representative of the beliefs of an entire religion.

The possible reasons why someone might ridicule the things they fear or those that are inconsistent with their own beliefs are obvious. I'm just not sure which ones apply to you in this case.

Quote:

Original post by phresnel "Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools." Creationism.

It should be discussed in schools. Religion should be a part of public education. An understanding of the religions that form global cultures has an enormous impact on people's world views. There's no reason that a broad view course explaining the beliefs of different religions shouldn't be taught in public schools.

The catholic school I went to taught more about Hinduism, Buddhism, Muslim, and any number of other religions than any public school in the area, and it dramatically affects the stigmas you might have against people in your community.

The fallout against Muslims post-9/11 would have been way smaller if people understood the beliefs of the majority of its faithful.

edit: learning a religion is not the same as following a religion.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by Valderman The most important reason, however, is that while the government might need, say, 30% income tax to function properly, quite a lot of people really can't afford to pay that much. If you make 2k USD/month, paying 30% rather than 20% might make the difference between being able to afford food and shelter, and not. If, on the other hand, you make 20k USD/month, paying 30% rather than 20% might make the difference between buying a new yacht this year or having to save up for another eight months. If we go even higher, the only thing impacted by paying 30% income tax rather than 20% is your ability to make even more money. why do people assume that rich people just spend money on useless things. I won't say that some of them don't, but if I made that kind of money I'd be much more likely to either invest it or start my own companies, which would benefit a lot of people. If I were to buy a yacht, it would probably be well after I was making enough for it to be a very very small percentage of my income unless I decided I wanted to live on the yacht instead of at a house. My investing would be impacted severely more by a tax increase than my spending on stupid things. Also, there are definitely people that are orders of magnitude harder working than others.

Yes, they would likely pump most of the money right back into the economy (buying a yacht or investing; it doesn't really matter since both acts return the money to the economy.) However, someone who needs all of their salary just to survive is guaranteed to pump it all right back in, and then we have the added bonus of that person actually surviving and being able to work, as opposed to turning hobo/having to resort to welfare/whatever.

Another nice thing about it is that pretty much every study on the subject indicates that higher equality goes hand in hand with lower crime rate.

Quote:

Seriously, why should people be penalized for succeeding??

I don't expect you to get this since you seem firmly on the "EVERY man is an island" train, but redistribution of wealth is not a penalty; it benefits even the wealthy, indirectly. As previously stated, "success" is NOT a function of competence, hard work or anything else sensible.

Quote:

Original post by Valderman EVERY man is an island

is that a fat joke?

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care why do people assume that rich people just spend money on useless things. I won't say that some of them don't, but if I made that kind of money I'd be much more likely to either invest it or start my own companies, which would benefit a lot of people. If I were to buy a yacht, it would probably be well after I was making enough for it to be a very very small percentage of my income unless I decided I wanted to live on the yacht instead of at a house. My investing would be impacted severely more by a tax increase than my spending on stupid things. Also, there are definitely people that are orders of magnitude harder working than others.

Investment doesn't necessarily benefit people. For example, over the last decade wealthy people put hgue amounts of money into financial products that were 100% speculative. It benefited the investors early on, but did nothing for anyone else. And in the later phases of those investments, they hurt a lot of people, and badly. And there is a trend in which the wealthy increase their speculative investing as a greater percentage of wealth conentrates into their hands.

Plus, there's no particular reason that someone would invest in the US rather than another country, which may not do anything for Americans at all. It's probably not a bad financial decision on the part of the investor, but that's not something that lower classes should have to finance by subsidizing lower taxes on the affluent.

And while there are certainly people who work much harder than others, the rich is not made up entirely of such people, and the wealth disparity between rich and poor is hardly proportional to labor.

Quote:

Original post by Quasimojo Nor should they! Seriously, why should people be penalized for succeeding?? I just don't get the mindset that since someone else has more money than I, they should have to give me some of it.

It's not much of a penalty to pay a slightly higher marginal rate on income and still have more income left over than the vast majority of people.

And since the wealthy have had everything to do with depressing real wages of the middle and lower classes while their own income has skyrocketed, why shouldn't they bear at least a slightly higher cost? Particularly on things that we all, as a nation, use?

America has not run fiscally sound policy over the last decade (at least), and we have reached the point where spending cuts alone are not going to be enough to correct the problem. Taxes will have to go up on everyone eventually to deal with the debt and deficits, but right now no one but the wealthy is in a position to contribute much. Why can't the rich pay more now, when only they can, and everyone else start chipping in when the economy has a bit more? I feel that this is particularly reasonable given that during America's fiscal irresponsibility income disparity increased dramatically in favor of the wealthy, who despite their significantly greater political influence (compared with the rest of the population) didn't bother to push for better fiscal policy. The wealthy own the budget in a way that no one else does, and so their share of responsibility for it is at least somewhat greater.

And it's not wealth distribution in the sense that you imply, where cash comes out of the pockets of millionaires and is handed directly to the less well-off. Take health insurance as an example. It has become more expensive over time. Workers accept health benefits from employers in lieu of additional pay. While health insurance costs have increased, real wages have decreased, and the health benefits offered by employers have become more spare. So employees get lower quality health benefits than previously without a corresponding increase in pay. And even if they want to buck their employer's offered health benefits, they would still have less moneyto put towards any health plan, all of which have become more expensive anyhow.

Quote:

Original post by Khaiy Investment doesn't necessarily benefit people.

I cut most of this for length, but for similar reasons you may as well not teach anyone to fish because someone fell off a boat and drowned one time.

May I ask you a question. If I give you $200, and you proceed to go buy a gun with it and shoot someone. Is it my fault?

Quote:

Plus, there's no particular reason that someone would invest in the US rather than another country, which may not do anything for Americans at all. It's probably not a bad financial decision on the part of the investor, but that's not something that lower classes should have to finance by subsidizing lower taxes on the affluent.

and the lower classes finance it by paying disproportionately less taxes BY AN ENORMOUS MARGIN if they pay any taxes at all?

Quote:

It's not much of a penalty to pay a slightly higher marginal rate on income and still have more income left over than the vast majority of people.

It's not much of a penalty... in your opinion.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by Khaiy Investment doesn't necessarily benefit people. I cut most of this for length, but for similar reasons you may as well not teach anyone to fish because someone fell off a boat and drowned one time. May I ask you a question. If I give you $200, and you proceed to go buy a gun with it and shoot someone. Is it my fault? Quote: Plus, there's no particular reason that someone would invest in the US rather than another country, which may not do anything for Americans at all. It's probably not a bad financial decision on the part of the investor, but that's not something that lower classes should have to finance by subsidizing lower taxes on the affluent. and the lower classes finance it by paying disproportionately less taxes BY AN ENORMOUS MARGIN if they pay any taxes at all? Quote: It's not much of a penalty to pay a slightly higher marginal rate on income and still have more income left over than the vast majority of people. It's not much of a penalty... in your opinion.

Many people who are for tax cuts for the rich argue along the lines that by letting them keep their money and letting them (presumably wisely) investing, employing people, starting business, purchasing things is good for the economy. They feel that this money that is being spent will "trickle down."

What Khaiy is saying is that maybe this is not the case. Perhaps (historically) they spend it on risky investments that don't benefit the economy, but destabilize it. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but your arguments were not addressing the point he was making