Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Loopholes and effective rates and other such things aside, I find it stupid that there are different % brackets. If 10% if fair then it's fair across the board. The whole point of making taxes a % of income is that rich people pay way more money than poor people in terms of actual money. I'm not against havinga poverty line where you don't pay any tax (although 40% of america is certainly not in poverty) but saying it's fair for one person to pay 10% while another person pays 25% defeats the whole purpose of paying taxes based on percentage in the first place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Well the idea with different percentages is that the more money you make the more you can afford to part with. Taking 25% of the income from someone making $50k/year is going to hurt them a lot more than taking 25% from someone making $500k. You could take 90% from someone making $50M/year (I know there aren't many of those people) and they'd still be making a ludicrous amount of money. *Edit* - To be clear, I'm not advocating a 90% tax on anyone, just illustrating the point. Edited February 1, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 but saying it's fair for one person to pay 10% while another person pays 25% defeats the whole purpose of paying taxes based on percentage in the first place. I agree 100%! That's also why I am in favor of shifting taxes away from income and more to consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Well the idea with different percentages is that the more money you make the more you can afford to part with. Taking 25% of the income from someone making $50k/year is going to hurt them a lot more than taking 25% from someone making $500k. You could take 90% from someone making $50M/year (I know there aren't many of those people) and they'd still be making a ludicrous amount of money. *Edit* - To be clear, I'm not advocating a 90% tax on anyone, just illustrating the point. That's where I think it's wrong to call it "your fair share". If you're stuck paying 40% and someone else only has to pay 10% it's not fair anymore. You're being punished for being successful. To me it's not a good idea to punish people for being successful. It's also possibly a redistribution of wealth thing which is also something I'm against. Edit: To clarify, I think that mentaility comes from thinking rich people just swim in their money. Reality is a little different though I think. http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/01/14/bill_gates_has_given_away_28_billion_since_2007/ How much money was it that Romney gave to Charity? Edited February 1, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-im-not-concerned-with-the-very-poor/2012/02/01/gIQAvajShQ_blog.html?wprss=the-fix "Not concerned with the very poor"? I think you just lost yourself the election, Mr. Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/response/why-we-cant-comment And then there's this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) http://www.washingto...l?wprss=the-fix "Not concerned with the very poor"? I think you just lost yourself the election, Mr. Romney. Lets take another sound bite out of context. He saying we already have programs for the very poor. $374 Billion for health/medicaid stuff. Edited February 1, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 https://wwws.whiteho...we-cant-comment And then there's this. I'm gonna guess that's their cute little way of saying that they're not doing shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Well the idea with different percentages is that the more money you make the more you can afford to part with. Taking 25% of the income from someone making $50k/year is going to hurt them a lot more than taking 25% from someone making $500k. You could take 90% from someone making $50M/year (I know there aren't many of those people) and they'd still be making a ludicrous amount of money. *Edit* - To be clear, I'm not advocating a 90% tax on anyone, just illustrating the point. That's where I think it's wrong to call it "your fair share". If you're stuck paying 40% and someone else only has to pay 10% it's not fair anymore. I'm going to both agree and disagree with this. If (super)* rich people were paying the same percentage as everyone else, then I would agree you can't say they're not doing their fair share, but I do think that when they're paying less than other people you can say that. But I also don't think it's necessarily unfair to take a higher percentage from people who make more money. I wouldn't say fairness requires it, but I would say fairness allows it (within reason, and yes, I am the arbiter of what is "within reason" ). *I say "super" because I'm aware that the stuff that ends up with people like Romney only paying 14% only applies to people with tons and tons of money, and not everyone who could conceivably be classified as rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/komen-planned-parenthood-cuts-karen-handel_n_1245568.html?ref=fb&utm_campaign=020112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief&src=sp&comm_ref=false Fuck Karen Handel. You're toying with people's lives here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 @Ethan, yeah, it's sort of a grey area. Who decides what's "fair"? I just don't think I buy into the idea that because they can afford it they should be forced to give more. That simply doesn't strike me as just. I think you see it on a lot of tax returns too. A lot of liberal politicians, like Al Gore and Joe Biden give almost nothing to charity and they want us to tax the rich heavily. They go on record saying that paying taxes is doing your part to take care of the poor. More conservative politicians would prefer to tax less heavily and give money to charity to help the poor. It's a difference of ideals. Obama would like to make it so that charitable donations are not tax deductible, something that would greatly increase people like Mitt Romney's tax burdens because they give so much to charity. Personally, and this is even coming a bit from my religious side, I think that it should be individuals responsibility to care for the poor and needy around them. I think it's more damaging and wasteful for the governement to try and be a charity. Anyway, we're just into opinion at this point but that's my $0.02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) **** Karen Handel. You're toying with people's lives here. I rofled when I read this. Abortion isn't toying with people's lives? Edited February 1, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I agree that ideally people should give more individually, I just don't think it's realistic to expect individuals to voluntarily give on the same kind of scale that government can. But yeah, economic policy is an area where I can agree to disagree with people because I don't find opposing viewpoints morally lacking, I just disagree about the best way to accomplish the same goal. Okay, new post while I was writing: The grants didn't have anything to do with abortion, the grants were just to fund breast exams. Regardless of your stance on abortion, I think it's shitty to cut funding to exams that help women detect and treat cancer just because the organization also performs abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Well in the article it states "Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said earlier that the cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities." So it's not simply about abortion but additionally isn't the money going to just go to a different organization to provide exams? They're not going to just throw the money away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 But yeah, you're right, I retract my knee-jerk reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 **** Karen Handel. You're toying with people's lives here. I rofled when I read this. Abortion isn't toying with people's lives? That is neither here nor there when you're pulling support for breast exams. There are plenty of people out there who can only afford to get breast exams through Planned Parenthood. By removing the grants, you're essentially denying these people the ability to get examined. Lives will be lost, all thanks to some moron who doesn't respect a woman's freedom to do what she will with her body. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 **** Karen Handel. You're toying with people's lives here. I rofled when I read this. Abortion isn't toying with people's lives? That is neither here nor there when you're pulling support for breast exams. There are plenty of people out there who can only afford to get breast exams through Planned Parenthood. By removing the grants, you're essentially denying these people the ability to get examined. Lives will be lost, all thanks to some moron who doesn't respect a woman's freedom to do what she will with her body. Again, the money will probably be reinvested in a different group to provide the exams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Surely it's going to waste a lot of that money to redistribute it when there was already an effective set-up in place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Surely it's going to waste a lot of that money to redistribute it when there was already an effective set-up in place. Meh, maybe. Sounds like a pretty weak argument just to back a crappy organization like Planned Parenthood. It seems as though they've been shuffling around federal money to fund abortions illegally and they're finally getting busted for it. As an aside, have a kid, it'll change your feelings on abortion. I mean, I know it sounds trite, but all the feelings you have towards kids get amplified x1000 once you have one of your own. I get literally enraged or heartbroken when I hear some terrible things on the news these days and I didn't used to before I was a father. Kids are amazing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 As an aside, have a kid, it'll change your feelings on abortion. I mean, I know it sounds trite, but all the feelings you have towards kids get amplified x1000 once you have one of your own. I get literally enraged or heartbroken when I hear some terrible things on the news these days and I didn't used to before I was a father. Kids are amazing. Is Duke legally able to? As far as abortion goes, it's the mothers choice. If they're unable to provide for a child, why should they? I'd think it much better a child be brought into a home that is prepared and wanting, than to have both parents and child struggle for the next two decades or so. It's not fun for either. Never mind the cases where it's a pregnancy the mother most certainly didn't want. I don't think anyone would think less of a woman aborting a rapists child. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 As far as abortion goes, it's the mothers choice. If they're unable to provide for a child, why should they? I'd think it much better a child be brought into a home that is prepared and wanting, than to have both parents and child struggle for the next two decades or so. It's not fun for either. No home is prepared and waiting just like it will always be difficult to raise a child. My nephew was a surprise baby and his parents weren't yet married. I find it sickening to think this kid whom we all love so much could've been taken away before we ever met him. I'm in no way anxious to have a kid (my wife is another story) but I can't see every just getting rid of it because it's inconveinent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Yeah, admittedly I don't have children, but I would be absolutely shocked if that changed my viewpoint one little bit. I love kids, but that doesn't have much to do with opposing/supporting abortion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I rofled when I read this. Abortion isn't toying with people's lives? I would say no. Abortion is a very serious decision and I don't think anyone would make it lightly. Calling it toying with people's lives is demeaning the incredibly difficult position that women with unexpected pregnancies are put in. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) fund abortions illegally ...you do know what Planned Parenthood actually does most of the time, don't you? Here, let me fill you in. http://front.moveon....-actually-does/ I know it might sound convincing when the GOP goes after Planned Parenthood and labels them as evil abortion monsters, but they are an important organization. And defunding them is seriously screwed up. And you may not like the idea of abortion, but you also probably don't like the money that comes from YOUR taxes that ends up paying the childcare after someone who can't take care of a baby has one and thrusts it into the government's hands. Or would you rather let the child grow up in a piss poor environment and leave the government out of it entirely? Either way, it's a shitty life you're sending those children into. Edited February 1, 2012 by DukeOfPwn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 As far as abortion goes, it's the mothers choice. If they're unable to provide for a child, why should they? I'd think it much better a child be brought into a home that is prepared and wanting, than to have both parents and child struggle for the next two decades or so. It's not fun for either. No home is prepared and waiting just like it will always be difficult to raise a child. My nephew was a surprise baby and his parents weren't yet married. I find it sickening to think this kid whom we all love so much could've been taken away before we ever met him. I'm in no way anxious to have a kid (my wife is another story) but I can't see every just getting rid of it because it's inconveinent. I'm not advocating aborting every unplanned pregnancies, but it's much better to be planned or to know that the child can be supported and loved than to be forcefully brought into a world where that won't be the case because it sounds awesome on some politicians bullet points. p.s "Planned Parenthood" is actually an organisation? I just thought it an american way of saying "family planning". i.e the segment of health that condoms, abortions, morning after pill, The Pill, STI screening, ante/pre-natal etc comes under. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.