I keep who I vote for to myself and to with what others think.
I am being honest. Romney would be in my best financial interests - but I will vote Obama because I live on very little, relatively speaking, and I don't mind paying my fair share.
Is it stupid? Some people would label me as stupid but I don't necessarily need anyone's approval or care about anyone else's opinion.
I do feel that Obama is a waaay lesser evil and therefore gets my vote.
That makes sense - I don't think it's stupid. It's not self-serving and some people may view that as stupid, but depends on how you view things.
I will vote for Obama and feel damn good I did.
Will I pay more in taxes under Obama than Romney? yes.
Will I vote for Romney? no.
Taxes HAVE to go up. Spending HAS to go down. There is not enough discretionary spending that can be reduced to make a dent in the annual deficit, you can cut PBS, NEA, etc. funding 100 times and it's not enough to make one damned bit of difference. Mitt wants to cut the taxes on the rich, like that has done one ing thing for the economy (compare current high income marginal tax rates with historical amounts - why, they're already at their lowest in decades) and has NO spending plan that will make any difference.
Not to mention he changes his message to suit whatever audience he talks to. The incredible, amazing, ever-changing to get your vote Mitt Romney. No thanks.
One thing I don't get is why people believe "the rich" should pay more? It's not their fault they have money. Not in all cases, but a lot of cases, those with money worked very hard to get it. They should not be disproportionally penalized because they earn more to subsidize everyone else. The reason why this country is in debt wasn't because the rich people in this country earned wealth - there were other policies put in place which led to this, but in order to fix it you place a burden on the rich? Makes no sense. All that will do in theory is take away incentive to work hard and go beyond in order to do more when they will just penalize you for it. It's a large reason why you see a lot of practices going out of business due to constraints on insurance, malpractice...Why earn more when you could just coast and not have the stress of being a doctor and you get better tax rates?
There should be a flat tax rate to everyone, regardless of your income (which the rich will technically still end up paying more dollars since they are coming from a larger pool of money). That is the only fair way IMO.
We see Mitt flip flopping during his debates - however, we have seen Obama completely lie and flip flop and make this country worse off as an actual President. So it's tough to say what's worse down the road.
I've got no problem paying my fair share. I've got enough and the rest is just for showing off.
It is not that simple.
Some have gotten rich by hurting a lot of people like the food processors, tobacco companies and chemical companies that has addicted most of the population.
Goddamn right they should pay more.
Sure but many issues we have come from subsidizing those who aren't working, wont work and make poor life choices. So should they pay more?
LOL re ed flat tax plan completely disregarding the diminishing marginal utility per dollar.
DPG with the complete packaged goods in here..nice work. Just be warned, on a board full of hardcore liberals your teachings won't be kindly received.
You are looking down instead of looking up. The elite pay a lot of money to keep people like you looking down and blaming things on the poor while they pillage the country. You were played and are obediently looking down and placing blame on the poor. The very rich thank you for always keeping the focus away from them.
Let the bottom half scrap for the crumbs and fight and blame each other while the top gets richer and richer. The common sentiment is , "why make the rich pay more- they earned it....they will take their money elsewhere....they shouldn't be penalized for being rich....blah-blah..."
Only a true revolution will ever change this - but it won't be in our lifetime.
Suddenly, you are ok with DPG...lol...only when it fits your agenda...
I'm ok with the points he's making in this thread that's for sure. Couldn't have said it any better. I'm not a republican but I find myself disagreeing with the Dems sometimes more than the Reps I just can't get on board with socialism, en lements, looking down on people in jealousy for being successful, abortion, and big government. On the flip side, the only thing I really disagree with the republicans on is the war mongering and defense spending, but both sides actually play world police anyway. It's a balancing act and in the end I find myself criticizing the left more but I'll be the first to criticize the right when they up too. Hated bush.
Fox news thanks you for your support and your parroting of their views.
go tune back into cnn tbh
And some are super rich while moving profits offshore in an effort to avoid paying their "fair share". That's the problem. When I say the rich should pay their fair share, I'm not talking about Lebron James, Tom Cruise or any other millionaire. I'm talking about billion dollar corporations that have offshore accounts and greatly reduce their taxes through creative accounting and lobbyists.
The solution should be simple. Keep your money and labor here, enjoy some tax breaks. Move the money offshore and you're cut off and forced to pay the maximum you're allowed. The company will either run or stay and create jobs and add to our economy while getting breaks for keeping it all in the family so to speak. Of course, the government bureaucracy (read lobbyists with lawmakers on the take in a legal way of course) will find a way to mess it up.
Hmmmmm.. I wonder if the issues we face with the economy today (or have faced historically) were precipitated by any of the folks you mentioned? In terms of scale and impact, whatever issues we might have with the poor pale in comparison to the issues that arise when "big money" is involved.
To answer if they should pay more: You'd necessarily have to split hairs here, and this is where we venture into truly murky waters.
Why isn't said person working? What cons utes a "poor life choice"? etc, etc.
My opinion is that every American will need to nut up and pay more if we're going to get out of this mess. That and the safety nets we have in place for the poor will need to be scaled down.
Last edited by Agloco; 10-24-2012 at 10:42 PM.
Please elaborate (I know what diminishing marginal utility is, but wanted to see what you meant by it). Keep in mind, a lot of economic theory is just that - theory. I was talking about what is fair (i.e. not charging someone more because they make more money from a percentage standpoint) - not what necessarily will happen or needs to happen.
I place blame on both ends of the spectrum - however, you rarely hear "hey, let's take more of the poor people's money to make up for it" arguments.
I agree with this and was not alluding to those with shady practices. I was more referring to those who are in the higher income households and play by the rules in theory should not in any way be adversely harmed because of that.
Perhaps the issues with big money are greater than the issues with the poor, however that doesn't relegate the issues with the poor into nominal territory. It is murky and I agree with your last sentiment, however my main point is about fairness and economic principles: You don't punish those with more just because they have it because there will reach a point where you drive people away from those areas and those are areas of great importance. The more and more you take away incentive to do more/earn more, the greater the issue becomes.
Are you telling me you disagree that the money a middle or lower class family spends to have a car for transportation to/from work doesn't have much greater utility than does an equivalent amount spent by someone looking for something to drive on the weekend or as a status symbol? The diminishing marginal utility of the dollar seems to be a pretty self-evident truth in the sense of say, the postulates of geometry in Euclid's Elements. I think you're going to have a really hard time arguing that a summer vacation home for someone who can afford it has comparable utility to a non-wealthy family's only home. I don't see how one can reasonably expect solid growth in an economy if the majority of people with high marginal utility per dollar who spend their dollars don't have money to spend.
So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?
Also, why would they have no money to spend? If they are getting taxed at their current rate and are able to live full complete lives with everything they need, why would lowering the tax burden on those above them negatively impact the amount of money they have to spend (in theory - obviously if you lower the tax rate from your largest pool of money, it would have to be made up somewhere).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
