Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scout
There never was a surplus, merely a "projected" surplus that in essence implied that someday far into the future our huge national debt would be paid off. Now instead of paying off the national debt we are sinking further into debt. So you are partially correct. This increase in the deficit is due to several things, the recession that started on the Democratic watch, the complete economic breakdown of what little economy we had left when the attacks of 9/11 occurred, paying for this war on terror, and all the good paying jobs being shipped overseas thanks to NAFTA to name a few. NAFTA happened on the Democratic watch I might add.
Why is it everyone seems to think that just because someone makes more money they should pay a bigger percentage of taxes????? WTF is up with that, the only truly fair tax system is everyone pay the exact same percentage with absolutely no loopholes. How is it fair that the man or woman living across the street has to pay a higher percentage of taxes than you just because they make more? If everyone paid the same percentage without the loopholes they would already have a higher tax burden than you simply because they made more. Under the current tax system you probably pay more taxes than the couple across the street because there is more for them to write off. What's fair about that? Where did this Democratic thing of robbing the rich to give more welfare to the poor go so wrong? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping out my fellow man that wakes up in a tight spot one day but geeeeeez there has to be a limit. It wasn't all that long ago I was working two jobs, raising a family and going to school and people on welfare was living better than me and that's no shit. Now that I've put forth the effort and worked my ass off, and the Good Lord knows I ain't rich by any stretch of the imagination, but just because I make more than the average worker you want me to pay a higher percentage of taxes? WTF is fair about that? Just because you feel it's your civic duty to pay more taxes doesn't necessarily mean I feel it's my civic duty. If you feel you owe more to society then by all means donate more of your check. When you get paid every week set down and write a check to Uncle Sam with a note telling him you don't feel you didn't pay enough in taxes this week so you are going to donate a little more. Don't tax me and force me to take on a burden I have little interest in supporting.
/end of rant, stepping off the soapbox.
|
First of all, I think it would be more accurate to claim NAFTA was a bipartisan fucking of the middle class than to state it happened on the democratic watch.
Secondly, do you agree with me that person's tax obligation should be commensurate with his or her earnings/assets?
That is, you are arguing that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes as a percentage than the average joe. If it's true that rich jon earns and owns 60% of the US economy pie, and average joe only earns/owns 30% of the pie, shouldn't rich jon pay 60% of the expenses to run this nation and average joe pay 30%?
That is what I envision as fair. Why should rich jon only pay 45% of the nation's burden (while getting to play with 60% of its assets) while joe has to pay 45% when he only gets to play with 30% of the pie?
There are all kinds of arguments swirling around this thread regarding justifications for or against the upper class citizens paying more or less than the average citizens; but it seems that taxes should be understood in relative terms as a percentage of one's earnings and assets than just thinking 30% is 30% is 30%.
When I was working at a flooring company while attending school, we had our carpet marked up between 25-40%. We salespeople were able to play with the numbers but our rock-bottom was about 20-25% of cost. Now our $3.99 bottle of rug cleaner was marked up more along the lines of 200%. Do you think that was unfair? Or do you see how silly it would be to use a flat markup rate of 40% across the board regardless of taking into consideration other factors, such as, the low cost of the product? That is, we would have lost money on our rug cleaner in the long run if we sold it at a mere $2.10 (~40% markup)--only making something like $0.60 on each unit sold. On the other hand, if we had sold our carpet for 200% markup, we wouldn't end up selling very much of that either.
I don't know if that anecdote will help you understand why I think flat tax arguments fail to take into account important contextual factors when they claim to be fair to everyone.