Why do liberals want to punish hard work and success?

The wealthy get far, far more out of the government than the welfare recipients. Asking them to pick up the tab for their privilege is not an unreasonable demand.

 

No.

If you're acknowledging crony capitalism wrt to "getting far, far more", then you outlaw the cronyism. You don't tacitly shrug your shoulders at it, and then say "fine! Tax them like crazy, in return for allowing the cronyism".

Because it traps those of means who didn't abuse the system in that manner.

On the other hand, if you're simply trying to snare all people of means in the leftist canard of "it takes a village, and without the structure and order of civilization created by Government, these wealthy would not have had the environment to become wealthy", then I'm going to force you acknowledge the other side of the coin: even a flat tax requires people to pay a certain percentage of every dollar earned - and that percentage is the same throughout all wages.

But the reality is that our present system demands more of them than that; they are people who pay much more into the system than do others. That they've had the wherewithall to successfully pursue happiness, life and liberty is an opportunity for others as well. I did, and I grew up desperately poor.

 

Well, in many areas, garbage service is not a government service. It's a utility, and we pay a bill for it.

 

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

----Benjamin Franklin--Conservative--Founder--Hater of Liberals--Great American
.
.
.
The (D)emocrat Party is (D)ependent upon (D)ependents and their (D)ependence........

.......punishing success and rewarding failure is how the (D)emocrat party swells their ranks.
.
.

 

No one, and I mean no one, gets wealthy in this country without government privilege. You can't have wealth without privilege. They're so closely linked they might as well be synonyms. How could you be wealthy without owning something? The system itself provides more benefits to the wealthy, even without the cronyism. The institutions are designed with the sole benefit of the wealthy in mind.

The impact of the tax varies heavily depending on the person's income. When discussing taxation of the poor, we're literally talking about taxing them enough to keep food off their plate. That's a significantly higher impact than forcing some rich guy to hold off on buying his fifth vacation home for a month or two.

Their actual, effective tax rate is usually lower than solidly middle class folks. Because of the regressive payroll tax, and the criminally negligent capital gains rate. The people who pay the highest percentage of their income are the folks making ~100k a year, because they get nailed by the payroll tax.

Irrelevant. Wealth inevitably denies opportunities to others.

 

First off, Taxes are not punishment (in my opinion, At least). They are costs that people pay to maintain order and prevent social unrest. They are used to provide services and benefits for all American citizens (Although some get more benefit than others).

Secondly, I don't believe liberals want to punish success. They just have a different definition of what success is than what you do. They believe success is PRIMARILY based on hard work and providing good services to your customers. Whereas, Conservatives believe that the PRIMARY factor of success is risk-taking.

As for me, My belief is simple. Risk taking may be what starts your business going strong, But it's the hard work and dedication of your EMPLOYEES that keeps your business going strong year after year. And to undervalue and underpay your employees just to pad your own pockets, To treat them as little better than slaves is simply wrong.

So, Definitely do not pay people money or services for just sitting around and doing nothing to better themselves or society. I'm perfectly OK with this. However, If that person is making a genuine effort to work hard and provide for themselves and their own, Then they should be paid fairly. And by fairly, I mean that both the employer and the employee should have equal say on what fair is. Right now, The employee has virtually no say at all.

You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Unless you are willing to let a VERY LARGE amount of people starve in the streets, You can't raise taxes on the poor. You have to get the money from those that actually HAVE it.

That's why I advocate welfare reform, To curb abuse and misuse. I'd also like to see tax reform and an audit of our services we provide to see if we can save money. But this needs to be done BEFORE raising taxes on the poor and lower-middle class.

Thank you for your time.

 

Because Liberals are hard on Everything.Their Mommy's,
Their Nanny's,their Landscapers.They Hard-boiled Eggheads that
ask for refunds at their shrink's office.Even their shrinks are tired
of hearing about the same Humpty Dumpty dream.
If Freud were around Today,he'd ascribe the current dilemna of
a Liberal as suffering from Birth envy instead Penis envy.
Thus developing into a lifelong predisposition towards hardheadedness.
Er some such thig-a-ma-jigger.

 

This is a ridiculous poll, so I lied with my answer.

 

And the winner of this month's "Most Skewed Poll" goes to...

 

Well a major recipient of our taxes is the military; a military that protects the property of the wealthy. The wealthy have more invested in the US so the wealthy should pay more taxes.

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

50% of the country pays no income tax........income tax is what funds the military.

You want a United States where the wealthy pay more and cover all the expenses of the military......WERE ALREADY THERE.
.
.
.

 

Because those attributes are not as prevalent in their party as they are in the other.

 

Non-sequitur. They do regardless.

And I challenge your assertion regardless: the military protects our way of life, which is equal opportunity for us all. Those who have made something of themselves with that opportunity should not have to pay MORE than someone else for securing a country with free pursuit, any more than you should have to pay more for your college education simply because you ended up founding Facebook.

 

Source for your allegation?

 

Because of server problem I voted number one, that's wrong, please count the first option one vote down. Also, liberals are absolutely clueless about economy, they can never understand that they destroy the working places with the high taxes.

 

Non-sequitur; see above answer. No one in this country even survives without Government priviledge; Government is charged with defending our way of life through enforcement of the Constitution.

That's ridiculous. The "institutions" are designed with the benefit of every citizen in mind. That a citizen chooses to do nothing with it - and then whine and claim entitlements which are not rightly his is not something to laud.

Prove it. 10% of a small amount is a much smaller amount than 10% of a bigger amount.

You completely misunderstand the economics of equal taxation. It is both a moral and a fiscal issue, as well as one of social responsibility. Taxation is supposed to be applied to any income, at any level. Removing a financial burden from someone is exactly like giving everyone $1,000,000 each: it would have no effect, as it would merely lift the costs of all staples beyond the means of the rest to acquire them, and lead to shortages.

When you tax all levels of income equally, you attain a level of economic parity. It is my assertion that the less we tax the poor, the more poor they become.

Payroll tax isn't a tax: it's a subscription to services. I'm not going to agree to terms that people with your ideology have defined.

Complete BS nonsense. Wealth is incapable of any such thing. Regardless my financial stature, I am increasingly able to provide financial opportunities for others to the degree that I have assets with which to work.

 

Why do conservatives have to make up delusional statements to support their opinions?

For example, why is taxing the wealthy at Ronald Reagans tax rates considered extreme and punishment?

I guess this country was a socialist mecca under Reagan?

 

Do the wealthy use food stamps?
Do the wealthy use welfare?
Do the wealthy use public housing?
Do the wealthy use unemployment benefits?
Do the wealthy use Medicaid?

 

Do the wealthy use the fire department?
Do the wealthy use the public school systems?
do the wealthy use the police department?
Do the wealthy use the US Coast Guard?
Do the wealthy use the Armed Forces?
Do the wealthy use the justice system?
Do the wealthy use public hospitals?
Do the wealthy use the public library?
Do the wealthy use Medicare?
Do the wealthy use the Interstate Highway System?
Do the wealthy use the parks, recreational and historical sites/locations?

I can add more. Fact of the matter is the wealthy use plenty of government provided services, not limited just to Federal system, but all levels of government.

 

Not as often as the poor folks do and they pay more than their fair share for those things too.

Personally I think the rich should pay more in taxes because they have more discretionary income than poor people do. However, one must be careful not to tax them too much because they can afford to do something poor folks can't, move and take their money with them so that there is nothing to tax. So if you want to keep the poor people here where we can tax them and profit from their business ventures you must keep their tax rates low enough so that there isn't anyplace to go cheaper than here.

 

I think that when the only way you can make an argument is to disparage the character of the people you disagree with, you're basically admitting defeat and that your argument lacks reasonable merit.

 

Some incentives should definitely put into place to discourage living off of the system. Because it is human nature to remain in circumstances that are comfortable. And FAR too many people are comfortable living on the government dole. This would just be a sad case of people accepting mediocrity if it weren't for the fact that good, honest, hard working people have to pay for these people to sit around. So the way the system is currently set up, it actually makes more sense to be a lazy schmuck. Because the harder you work, the more you get penalized. And the less you do, the more you get rewarded. Liberals understand this logically, but they just can't accept it emotionally. Because they have this bleeding heart complex that can't stand to see anybody "poor."

I say restructure the system to where the government dole is as uncomfortable as possible. So that people will be more inspired to get off of it. Implimenting drug tests for people getting government assistance and ridding public housing of cable television is a good place to start.

 

I don't think that any side wants to punish hard work, except for the Communists of course.

One side just wants everyone to make the same hourly wage and let their efforts and work time determine how much they make.

 

Drug tests cost big money; who's supposed to foot the bill for it? More added costs to the taxpayer?

 

But even that rewards mediocrity.

My co-worker and I are both paid $5 an hour to dig ditches. I work hard and dig a mile in 8 hours. He takes his time and digs 100 feet in 12 hours. I will have done far more work, yet he will have been paid 50% more than me.