Originally posted by quackquack
When a guy pays $100 million dollars in taxes, society should say thank you not dream up fake moralistic arguments that he should pay more. To do otherwise is the ultimate in ungratefulness.

When a guy makes more than $100 million dollars, that person should say thank you to society, not dream up fake moralistic arguments that he should pay less taxes. To do otherwise is the ultimate in ungratefulness.

See how that works?

Originally posted by quackquack
We've reached the point where certain people pay enough. Either build the hospital for $100 million dollars, make cuts on this project or a different project or broaden the tax base. But it unacceptable to have new pet projects and tax the group you decide won't miss their money.

"We've reached the point where certain people pay enough."
what is enough? is it an arbitrary sum set without considering other parameters? 2000 dollars is more than enough for the guy making 20k a year. is it enough for the guy making 20 million? or should that guy pay more?


"Either build the hospital for $100 million dollars"
cool, so the construction workers should suffer the difference as a consequence of lower wages? should the difference be made by using lower quality materials so that the sick suffer the difference? should the hospital not be made at all?

somebody is going to suffer some unpleasantness on this one. so tell us who should that be? the construction worker? the nurses? the janitor of that hospital when it is built? the sick? or the uber rich CEO who would simply see a smaller number in his bank account with no impact on his life style?

"But it unacceptable to have new pet projects and tax the group you decide won't miss their money."
so it is more acceptable to tax those who WILL miss their money?
nobody is saying that one should be taxed extra just for fun but some projects need to be built. a nation has to build hospitals, schools, roads. Somebody is getting taxed for them. that is not changing. so who is it gonna be and how much?

tell me, if you have 4 bags of groceries, do you make your five year old son carry 2? or you make him carry according to his ability?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"We've reached the point where certain people pay enough."
what is enough? is it an arbitrary sum set without considering other parameters? 2000 dollars is more than enough for the guy making 20k a year. is it enough for the guy making 20 million? or should that guy pay more?


"Either build the hospital for $100 million dollars"
cool, so the construct ...[text shortened]... s, do you make your five year old son carry 2? or you make him carry according to his ability?

If I have four bags of groceries I should be able to keep my four bags of groceries -- not have you tell me that I wouldn't miss it if I had three and others need my groceries more. While you believe that you are wise enough to decide who will and won't miss their belonging who and will and won't deserves more and who does and doesn't contribute to our economy my guess is you are completely wrong. Government should not continually expand and your belief that others should pay for what you want is morally unjustifiable.

Originally posted by quackquack
If I have four bags of groceries I should be able to keep my four bags of groceries -- not have you tell me that I wouldn't miss it if I had three and others need my groceries more. While you believe that you are wise enough to decide who will and won't miss their belonging who and will and won't deserves more and who does and doesn't contribute to our e ...[text shortened]... nually expand and your belief that others should pay for what you want is morally unjustifiable.

You don't think others should contribute taxes towards paying for the government services you want?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You don't think others should contribute taxes towards paying for the government services you want?

I don't think that people should demand that others should be the ones to have tax increases to pay for the services they want.

Originally posted by quackquack
I don't think that people should demand that others should be the ones to have tax increases to pay for the services they want.

I see. Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, the government services you like will be more expensive next year. Will you personally pay this extra cost, then? Or will you demand contributions also from other taxpayers?

Originally posted by whodey
Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

Meanwhile, whodey has refused to explain why he brought up marginal utility in the first place. Will he continue to beat around the bush in his usual slithering style and hope we all get an acute attack of Alzheimer's? Place bets now.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, the government services you like will be more expensive next year. Will you personally pay this extra cost, then? Or will you demand contributions also from other taxpayers?

First of all, I don't demand anything. It's not appropriate. Second, I don't have favorite government services. But the first thing would be to see if the budget has savings elsewhere. The next thing would be to see if revenues have increased. If revenues have not increased and costs continually increase then the best solution would be to make cuts somewhere.

Originally posted by quackquack
First of all, I don't demand anything. It's not appropriate. Second, I don't have favorite government services. But the first thing would be to see if the budget has savings elsewhere. The next thing would be to see if revenues have increased. If revenues have not increased and costs continually increase then the best solution would be to make cuts somewhere.

Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, it is not possible to make cuts in the provision of the government services you like without compromising their quality. Would you personally pay for the increased costs, or would you ask others to share this burden with you?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, it is not possible to make cuts in the provision of the government services you like without compromising their quality. Would you personally pay for the increased costs, or would you ask others to share this burden with you?

This is 100% unrealistic because there is so much governmental waste that we could cut programs. We also could save money by increasing the co-payment people pay for any program that provides benefits or increasing eligibility requirements. But if you want an answer to your question, I certainly wouldn't volunteer to pay more than my burden of taxes ever.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
When a guy makes more than $100 million dollars, that person should say thank you to society, not dream up fake moralistic arguments that he should pay less taxes. To do otherwise is the ultimate in ungratefulness.

See how that works?

Should society thank the guy who made $100 million for those items or services they enjoyed because of his business? Or is their voluntary purchases enough thanks?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, it is not possible to make cuts in the provision of the government services you like without compromising their quality. Would you personally pay for the increased costs, or would you ask others to share this burden with you?

I would gladly opt out of all government services, even Social Security, which I could argue I paid for specifically, if I could opt out of taxation as well.

Oh, I know this is all hypothetical stuff, and I would still walk the sidewalks, breathe the air, get my garbage collected, etc.

Originally posted by quackquack
This is 100% unrealistic because there is so much governmental waste that we could cut programs. We also could save money by increasing the co-payment people pay for any program that provides benefits or increasing eligibility requirements. But if you want an answer to your question, I certainly wouldn't volunteer to pay more than my burden of taxes ever.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of programs funded and administered by the Federal government that are obsolete, not used, and not needed. They are kept going by the government employees who run them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Let's suppose that, for whatever reason, it is not possible to make cuts in the provision of the government services you like without compromising their quality. Would you personally pay for the increased costs, or would you ask others to share this burden with you?

The only responsibility of the Federal government that is Constitutional is the military, which stems from the right to self defence. The US military has so outgrown its Constitutional mandate, it is beyond recognition. And it is at or near the largest line item on the budget.