Groove can defend himself just fine. I was under the impression that, if I saw a post, whether directed at me or not, I could respond. It helps further the debate, at least in my opinion.

And doc, I know you were responding to Groove. But when we're talking about economic philosophies, it's important, again in my opinion, to note that most economies can't be pigeon holed into one or the other. Most are a mix.

I certainly wasn't trying to call you out. I respect your opinions and posts. But the buzzwords that get thrown around aren't good for debate, because a lot of times, the characterization is somewhat disingenuous. And I'm talking more about "socialism"

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:
I understand the tax system perfectly.

Well you're the only one in America that does.

And because you "understand the tax system perfectly" you're a tax attorney, correct? And all of your clients are poor people making $10k a year, right? How's that working out for you?

quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Hannibal Lecter:

After the statements in this thread, and particularly this post, I don't think I can go on reading your posts with the same mindset.

American capitalism is a complete failure.. ..what a joke.

I was responding to a guy who seems to think that any sort of governmental program or regulation is socialism.

I never said American Capitalism was a failure. It's the greatest economic success in the world but in order for the US to continue to be the egalitarian country that it was founded to be, we need to be mindful of the gap between the rich and the poor.

For me, it seems stupid and non-productive to throw the label of "socialism" on anything that's not 100% unregulated and not 100% unfettered capitalism.

quote:

Originally posted by rankincooter01:

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:
I understand the tax system perfectly.

Well you're the only one in America that does.

And because you "understand the tax system perfectly" you're a tax attorney, correct? And all of your clients are poor people making $10k a year, right? How's that working out for you?

Did you read the messages in the thread?

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

Did you read the messages in the thread?

Every one of them. What I learned is that you're an advocate of legal plunder.

And if you want to try & prove that you're "smarter" than me, I've read your comments. I'll accept that challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by rankincooter01:

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

Did you read the messages in the thread?

Every one of them. What I learned is that you're an advocate of legal plunder.

Arrr!

What, are you a pirate now?

By the way, nice edit on your comment to me. Are you backing down on your proclamation of superior intelligence?

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Hannibal Lecter:

After the statements in this thread, and particularly this post, I don't think I can go on reading your posts with the same mindset.

American capitalism is a complete failure.. ..what a joke.

I was responding to a guy who seems to think that any sort of governmental program or regulation is socialism.

I never said American Capitalism was a failure. It's the greatest economic success in the world but in order for the US to continue to be the egalitarian country that it was founded to be, we need to be mindful of the gap between the rich and the poor.

For me, it seems stupid and non-productive to throw the label of "socialism" on anything that's not 100% unregulated and not 100% unfettered capitalism.

Why is everyone so concern about the gaps between the rich and poor? If they're because the rich are enjoying continued success, and not because the poor are getting poorer, is it really a bad thing?

The percentage of folks living below poverty in 1960 was a little over 22%. As of August 2006, it's now at 12.6% Between 1970 and 2006, the poverty percentage has stayed between 11 and 16%, and varies slightly up and down in what can be described as a cyclical period.

The poor and middle class aren't suffering as much as the rich folks are just getting richer. Who cares? Good for them. Most of the rest of us are doing as good or better too.

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Hannibal Lecter:

You have a skewed definition of "fair" IMO. Is it fair that one person pay the government 10 million to receive, in all likelihood, fewer services than the person paying 1 thousand?

If you have no children, should you pay a school tax? If you have no children, is it fair that others get tax deductions for their children? Why should childless people subsidize the lifestyle choices of those that have chosen to have children?

What do you mean by services? Seems like people with more to lose benefit a great deal from things that empower their lifestyles/businesses such as highways, infrastructure, national defense, an educated populace from which to draw workers, etc.

Now if you're talking about foodstamps and aid to dependent children, yes, the lower income people will benefit from that more than the higher income people but only focusing on these types of services amounts to class warfare and seeks to divert attention from the fact that the lower and middle classes are being asked to shoulder more and more of the tax burden so as to finance tax cuts for the upper income brackets.

Your first paragraph was in no way a justification for what you described as fair tax structure. You merely pointed out a couple other items that could be considered unfair - essentially rhetoric with no point to support your argument.

By receiving more services, I meant receiving those types of aid not available to the other citizens of different tax brackets. The poor are free to use the highways, national defense, and education system to the same extent as the rich. Reality might dictate that they do not. However, saying that the rich are receiving more from the government because they have the means to make use of what everyone has common availability to is misleading.

quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Hannibal Lecter:

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Hannibal Lecter:

You have a skewed definition of "fair" IMO. Is it fair that one person pay the government 10 million to receive, in all likelihood, fewer services than the person paying 1 thousand?

If you have no children, should you pay a school tax? If you have no children, is it fair that others get tax deductions for their children? Why should childless people subsidize the lifestyle choices of those that have chosen to have children?

What do you mean by services? Seems like people with more to lose benefit a great deal from things that empower their lifestyles/businesses such as highways, infrastructure, national defense, an educated populace from which to draw workers, etc.

Now if you're talking about foodstamps and aid to dependent children, yes, the lower income people will benefit from that more than the higher income people but only focusing on these types of services amounts to class warfare and seeks to divert attention from the fact that the lower and middle classes are being asked to shoulder more and more of the tax burden so as to finance tax cuts for the upper income brackets.

Your first paragraph was in no way a justification for what you described as fair tax structure. You merely pointed out a couple other items that could be considered unfair - essentially rhetoric with no point to support your argument.

By receiving more services, I meant receiving those types of aid not available to the other citizens of different tax brackets. The poor are free to use the highways, national defense, and education system to the same extent as the rich. Reality might dictate that they do not. However, saying that the rich are receiving more from the government because they have the means to make use of what everyone has common availability to is misleading.

And those that are "rich" are providing more for the country and in turn government by owning or investing in a business that will be able to provide jobs and services to the less fortunate. Go and ask that guy making 10k to invest in a business and get laughed at. Go and ask the guy making 100mil and he just might invest a million into it. That would provide jobs to more people and more income and therefore more tax revenues.

quote:

Originally posted by rankincooter01:
What, are you a pirate now?

By the way, nice edit on your comment to me. Are you backing down on your proclamation of superior intelligence?

I thought it was an unnecessary comment which is why I deleted it. I'm sorry you saw it. I apologize for saying it.

quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Hannibal Lecter:
Why is everyone so concern about the gaps between the rich and poor? If they're because the rich are enjoying continued success, and not because the poor are getting poorer, is it really a bad thing?

Yes, I think it's a bad thing for a country like America, all things being equal.

All the rich are not hard working, innovaters who provide jobs for everyone. All the poor are not lazy, malingerers who provide nothing positive for society.

quote:

Originally posted by lgarner:

And those that are "rich" are providing more for the country and in turn government by owning or investing in a business that will be able to provide jobs and services to the less fortunate. Go and ask that guy making 10k to invest in a business and get laughed at. Go and ask the guy making 100mil and he just might invest a million into it. That would provide jobs to more people and more income and therefore more tax revenues.

But aren't the rich also benefiting from the society that provides them the infrastructure that they need to get rich and to remain rich?

It just seems simplistic, to me, to think of taxes as being merely a wealth transfer, which is what mhward said in his response calling me a socialist.

And back to the original point of the thread, the rich pay more $$ in taxes than the poor. So what?

The rich benefited more from tax cuts too, dollarwise and yet if someone says that Bush's tax cuts were aimed to benefit the rich, that's class warfare.

By the way, I just noticed in your sig that you're from Hayden. Do you know of a road called Oakhalla road, or something like that? I'm pretty sure it's not Oakhollow. When I lived in Alabama, back in the late 80's/early 90's, I worked with a guy from Hayden who lived on that road. I was thinking about him the other day and it struck me that it's been almost 20 years since I worked there. My mental image of all my co-workers from back then is frozen at 20 years ago. It's kind of weird being old.

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:
Where does this idea that all of your tax dollars are just used as handouts to the poor and undeserving come from?

I think a little more than half of it pays for the military. Big chunks pay for keeping your country safe in other ways, FTA, FDA, FBI, CIA etc. Billions of dollars go to local state and city governments to help pay for projects ranging from sewage, to roadways to housing.

I'd guess that far more of your tax money ends up in the bank account of unethical overcharging contractors than poor people.

And social security? Don't go there, most of the greatest generation depends on that just to get by living miserably.

I find it interestng and hard to believe that being the military supporter that you are, you would support a democratic candidate. Democrats cut military spending, depriving the troops of the equipment and technology needed that tax money you speak of is "paying for"

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:
Where does this idea that all of your tax dollars are just used as handouts to the poor and undeserving come from?

I think a little more than half of it pays for the military. Big chunks pay for keeping your country safe in other ways, FTA, FDA, FBI, CIA etc. Billions of dollars go to local state and city governments to help pay for projects ranging from sewage, to roadways to housing.

I'd guess that far more of your tax money ends up in the bank account of unethical overcharging contractors than poor people.

And social security? Don't go there, most of the greatest generation depends on that just to get by living miserably.

I find it interestng and hard to believe that being the military supporter that you are, you would support a democratic candidate. Democrats cut military spending, depriving the troops of the equipment and technology needed that tax money you speak of is "paying for"

I'm referring to where our tax dollars actually get used. The current administration, with a republican congress, failed to properly fund the troops during the first few years of this war. Billions of dollars were thrown at shady contractors who failed to produce what they were paid for. Money that should have been used to provide proper equipment for our troops.

Bush Sr. enacted the largest cuts to the military in my lifetime. If Clinton's administration had not rescinded many of those cuts the Marine Corps would have been reduced in number so drastically it would have no longer been a viable fighting force.

I lived on a base filled with housing that would fit right into any ghetto, all that changed during the Clinton years. They tore down all the housing and built new. They built new commisaries and post exchanges. The quality of life for the military improved a great deal during 90's. This was done with a Democrat president and a Republican congress working together to do what was right.