Obama's first failed appointment

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.

Yea, if I didn't do shit for a living I would think the same thing.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Eh, maybe he's looking for a job as a lobbiest.

If Joe is the best person the anti-tax movement can come up with as a pitchman to sell the flat tax..I don't expect anyone will benefit other than perhaps Joe.

He could do very well for himself with this initiative....better than his sagging book deal and country singing career.

Consider how that $.99 per voter is spent:

50% Fees taken by Telecoms providers such as MCI, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc.
20% Advertising and Public relations*.
10% Payment collection
7% Production costs and salaries for team
5% Platform costs to service providers
8% Leftover after other costs

Does that "leftover" = Joe's pocket?

Here is what I would do if I were Joe....start by posting the website on all the "We Love Sarah" blogs and boards and let it roll from there. Those enthusiastic activists wont bitch about $.99 and will certainly share it with fellow believers.

If he gets 1 million Palinistas to vote for a buck each.....that 8% leftover is $80,000 for Joe.

Nice scam!

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would describe it more as a philosophical difference than an argument of futility.

I side with every president (of either party) and every Congress since the 1920s when the income tax was initiated that believed (or at least accepted) that a progressive income tax system is the "fairest of them all."

But I am a Washington insider.

Agreed. Again... The only fair system is a graduated system, where taxes increase as income increases. As you earn more, you can afford to pay more... They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

...In the end, it could be that many believe that as one's income increases, one should contribute a greater proportion of that income to the public expense.

YES! THAT! ^^^

[classicman]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs, regardless of how much he has contributed.

[sugarpop]

Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Unfortunately, every communist nation has also been a dictatorship. It has never been done correctly according to the definition. Just like socialism.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You can't have it "be done correctly." Communism is a system for angels, not for men.

Probably because men have free will and angels do not. Or so it's said.

Communism never allowed for the fact that "even under the most rigidly controlled conditions of temperature and pressure, the organism will do as it damn pleases." Organisms actively seek their own advantage, one expression of which at least among the hominids is the profit motive.

As for Socialism/Communism-lite, the libertarians would say it founders on the fact that there is really no such thing as "the collective." There is only, we say, the ability of many individuals to act in unison towards a goal -- we can march in close formation. This kind of unanimity is always temporary, and we say that's how it should be. We also note that it is seldom absolute -- and that too would be temporary. We are not the Borg.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Where the actual fairness is in soaking the rich continues to escape me.

I think it escapes most really thoughtful people.

[lookout123]

They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

Once again I'd like you to define rich for me.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Just like socialism.

So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

[lookout123]

So putting that in real terms: I only need $60K/year to live my life. I have the ability to earn considerably more than that. If I don't need it and I don't get to keep it and I'm willing to trust the government to provide for me in the future why exactly should I work harder to earn more?

This needs and abilities sounds like a pretty sweet deal really. When I hit the number I need, I'll just check out and go home.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

I have never said I thought all people should have the same thing or the same amount of wealth. I DO think all people who work hard should be compensated well enough to live comfortably and have a life. Not everyone wants massive amounts of wealth. A lot of people just want a good life, and they are willing to work hard for it. They are content with being the middle class. But when the wealthiest are taking more and more of the pie, and squeezing out the middle class so they can no longer afford to live, there is a real serious problem.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Once again I'd like you to define rich for me.

I have defined "rich" numerous times. I am talking about people who earn about 5-10 million+ a year or more.

[classicman]

Sugar, you avoided the questions. You said that communism, true communism was a good idea. If that is still your belief, then explain who Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

Why do you also continue to focus on the top minuscule percentage. What about the other end of the spectrum? The bottom who make absolutely no contribution, have no ability to make any and can only take from those who are productive?

[lookout123]

OK, so do you think Obama is out of line calling for tax increases for non-rich people then?