Actually, I'd support C too, if I was dumb enough to think that it would mean I'd get a higher salary without being taxed for it. Not that he supports it for that reason, JeffKarde's not dumb.

I'd like a football player's average yearly salary, fries, and coffee, please.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

I think you're missing the point. I favor a system where those who make large amounts of money contribute a larger percentage to the society as a whole. Believe me, when I'm making $500,000 a year, own a brownstone on Boston Commons and driving ... well, I'll still be driving my Jeep ... I'd be more than happy to pay a larger percentage to the Government.

A problem with the arguments everyone is making here is that it comes down to "fairness" ... which is very subjective.

To some, "fairness" means everyone pays the same percent of taxes.

To me, "fairness" means that those who earn more contribute more (percent wise) than those who make less.

I don't think anyone here is going to convince the other(s) of their views, so maybe it's best to drop the subject.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

It's like saying it'd be 'fair' to put weights on the faster runners, or to make the beautiful people wear ugly masks.

Aren't they reading "Harrison Bergeron" in schools anymore?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

No, it wouldn't, because only certain people and industries would be taxed. It's also economically stupid, because if you charge high taxes on luxuries, people simply stop buying them. Yachts, anyone? The entire industry went down the tubes a while back, and destroyed a couple thousand jobs.

only states can (to the best of my knowledge) implement a sales tax

Well, the sixteenth ammendment says that the government can tax income derrived from any source, so that would seem to include sales. Of course, from what I gather, the sixteenth ammendment wasn't legally ratified, but...

I favor a system where those who make large amounts of money contribute a larger percentage to the society as a whole.

Yes, we noticed. We also pointed out that this was unfair and discriminatory, not to mention bad for the economy, and rejected your model on those basies(SP?).

My dictionary defines "fair" as being synonymous with "just," which is defined as suggesting equal treatment of all concerned. You don't want that.

Fairness is not trying to equalize the outcome. Fairness lies in IGNORING outcome, and simply treating everyone equally.

Just - Valid within the law; lawful; just claims

As far as I know, the IRA is legal, thus, the rich being taxed is lawful, thus, it is just. By your definition, it thus becomes fair! Thank you for debunking your own argument so effectively. Really, you are your own worst enemy.

And how exactly is it bad for the economy? Lest you forget, this nation is coming off its best economy in quite a long while, and the rich have been taxed a higher percentage. Your statement makes absolutely no sense what-so-frickin'-ever.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

"Fair" is defined as being synonymous with "just" when just is defined with the definition I gave. Webseter's Ninth New Collegiate.

Lest you forget, this nation is coming off its best economy in quite a long while, and the rich have been taxed a higher percentage.

Bingo. COMING OFF the best economy. Meaning it's ENDING. The economy's been slowing down for over a year now. Look at records. Every time there's been a major tax cut, the economy kicks up. Sixties, eighties. Remember that brief '91 recession? Remember the tax increase put into effect immediately preceeding it?

Think about it. The economy is, by definition, people moving money around. All other things being equal, the more money out there, the better the economy. A tax increase on the wealthy greatly reduces the amount of money in circulation, and is thus bad for the economy.

When he unveiled his tax cut, the biggest selling point was the weakening economy. "We need tax relief now - in fact, we need tax relief yesterday," he said. "The federal government is simply pulling too much money out of the private economy, and this is a drag on our growth." No doubt about it, the economic slowdown has improved Bush's prospects for merchandising his large tax cut. But Bush's approach also creates new risks, and even if he succeeds in changing conventional wisdom, economics may make it harder for him to get the tax cut he wants.

The obvious risk is this: if the slowdown fades, so would the argument for a tax cut. Bush's plan might fall prey to falso promotion. Even now, the proposal has to overcome economist's bias against tax cuts as an anti-recessionary weapon. Thier skepticism mainly reflects the "clunky" nature of the political process, says Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw. By the time Congress acts, the recession may be over. In contrast, the Fed moves quickly.

Most economists still don't anticipate a recession. They think the Fed's interest-rate cuts will revive confidence and growth. (This year, the Fed funds rate has dropped a full percentage point to 5.5 percent; economists expect more cuts.) In the latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter - which follows 51 forecasts - the average prediction for economic growth in 2001 is 2.1 percent, down from 5 percent last year. Growth would recover to 3.5 percent in 2002.

Of course, forecasts can be wrong - and these may be. By and large, the sharp slowdown has surprised economists. In October, the Blue Chip economists predicted growth of 3.5 percent for this year. Economists' continued optimism presumes that the slowdown is a temporary inventory correction. Businesses overordered, and once surplus goods are sold, production and employment growth will increase. The harsher possibility - which strengthens the case for a tax cut - is that the economy is suffered the afterstock of an unsustainable boom.

Emboldened by high stock prices, consumers overborrowed and overspent, the argument goes. Businesses overinvested because venture capitalists and new stock offering provided so much cheap capital. Together, consumer spending (68% of the GDP) constitute four fifths of the economy. If all this spending slows or drops, the economy is in trouble.

"If you argue that the consumption and investment booms are over," says economist Bill Dudley of Goldman Sachs, "Then the time for a contractionary fiscal policy is over." This was Bush's line last week. Expanding budget surpluses are sucking purchasing power from the economy. Lower interest rates alone may not spur recovery, if consumers think they're overindebted and businesses face idle production capacity. Monetary policy must be aided by fiscal policy, which puts money in people's pockets.

In effect, the theory is: it's necessary to cut budget surpluses in order to save budget surplusses. After all, the surplues - now estimated at 5.6 trillion from fiscal 2002 through 2011 by the Congressional Budget Office - are just paper projections. The projections assume healthy economic growth, and without it, the surpluses won't materialize. To get growth requires sacrificing some surpluses. Ironically, the worse the economy looks now, the better the case for a tax cut.

But not automatically Bush's tax cut. The plan sent to Congress was his campaign proposal. It aimed mainly to fulfill a political agenda - not serve as an economic stimulus. It promised to discipline government spending by depriving government of oney to spend. It would cut "marginal" (i.e., top) rates - a step that conservatives believe, promotes work and investment. It would help families by doubling the child tax credit to $1,000. It would help small business owners by eliminating the estate tax. But a political statement now promoted as an economic stimulus invites criticism.

Some provisions (the estate tax, new charitable deductions) would hardly affect the economy. Similarly, the timing is bad. Most tax cuts are phased in so slowly that they wouldn't much help the economy for a few years. For example, the full rate cuts and child-credit expansion wouldn't become effective until 2006. In 2002, the tax cut would total only $21 billion, estimates the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. That's not much in a $10 trillion economy. Bush now favors making tax cuts "retro-active" but hasn't said what he means.

===

What is fair? According to Omega, it's the same as Just. What Omega seems to not understand, is that Just is defined (in my dictionary) as being legal. The tax on the rich 1% are legal, thus, not only just but fair.

Now, if Omega wants to make the argument that "fair" and "just" are subjective, he's more than welcome to. Otherwise, I strongly suggest he pull his head out of his ass.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

As for your copied-and-pasted article about the tax cut, economic stimulus is not the ONLY reason for it. It's also because it's the morally right thing to do with the money. If you see you're going to overbill someone at some point in the future due to some error, you don't just keep the money and see if you can do them a favor later. You correct the mistake that's going to cause the overbilling.

Besides, what's Washington going to do with it? Last time we could have had a surplus of any size, the Democrats spent it before it even showed up, and we have nothing to show for it. This way, the people can actually do something with their money, instead of having it flushed.

As for the estate tax repellation not being necessary for economic growth, that may be true, but the estate tax is unfair, and thus should never have been instituted in the first place.

If you'd read, you'd see that "fair" is, as far as I'm concerned, subjective. Yes? No, how about this. The rich make quite a bit of money. Therefore, they can afford to pay quite a bit more in taxes percentage wise because they can bloody-well fucking afford it. The more you make, the more you contribute. The less you make, the less you contribute financially. (Percentage-wise). That is fair. Now, if that's now how you see fair, fine, but don't tell me that's how I have to see it.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

No, it is NOT fair, because you treat the rich worse than you treat the poor, and "fair" is defined as treating everyone equally. If you've got some other definition of "fair", please, go back to whatever planet you came from, or learn to speak english better.

But ...

Omega, you need to pull that stick out of your butt. You're really making a big deal about this. But, hey, I understand. You need something to keep ya' busy.

synonyms: fair, just, equitable, impartial, unpredjudiced, unbiased, objective, dispassionate.

These adjectives mean free from favoritism, self-interest, or bias in judgement

Since George W. is himself rich, a tax cut with a larger percentage for the rich is therefore showing all three of the above.

Fair is the most general: a fair referee; a fair deal; a fair fight; on a fair footing

Now, this is what we're arguing about. Fair is not the same as equality, as you think it is. If that were so, the rich would pay the exact same amount as the poorest person in the world.

Now, we both have different ideas on what fair is. You think that the rich should pay the same percent as the poor, I think that the rich can afford to pay a higher percent than the poor. Namely, because the poor have trouble getting by with their bills in lots of cases, and the rich generally don't need that extra $50k to do so. Argue with me as much as you want, you can't legislate morality, Omega, and you really need to get off your high horse and stop trying too.

Just stresses conformity with what is legally or ethically right or proper: a kind and just man; "a just and lasting peace" (Abraham Lincoln).

Are the current taxes imposed on the rich legal? Yes. Are they ethical? Absolutely, everyone should pay taxes and contribute to society. The argument is about how much they should pay.

Equitable also implies justice, but justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all concerned: an equitable distribution of gifts among the children

It is reasonable to assume that the rich will have no trouble paying their bills, donating money, etcetra, regardless of whether they save an extra $50k per year or not. When I'm rich, I will be happy conscience wise to pay a larger percentage of my income to taxes then those less fortunate than me. Although I'm not religious, I do know that those who are would support paying more taxes because, UIRW, didn't Jesus Christ say greed was bad?

Impartial emphasizes lack of favoritism: "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" (Edmund Burke).

George W. Bush is rich. Therefore, he can hardly be impartial to this issue. For that matter, very few of our elected officials could be, so don't take this as an attack on Dubya alone.

Omega, why do you scream and wail on this issue for so long? Just wondering. Am I impartial? Well, let's see, I got most of my Federal taxes back, so even under Dubya's plan, I wouldn't save that much money, so it's not going to effect me very much at all, so yes, I could say I'm rather impartial.

Unpredjudices means without favorable or unfavorable preconceived opinions or judgements: an unprejudiced evaluation of the arguments for and against the proposal.

Well, no one in here qualifies for that. Although hearing Omega call himself an "independent" comes pretty close.

Unbiased implies absence of the preference or inclination inhibiting impartiality: gave an unbiased account of her family problems

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the Republican Party leadership (up to and including Mr. Limbaugh) is rich. Therefore, they're unbiased, and don't you feel kind of foolish taking unbiased information? No, of course not.

Objective implies detachment that permits observation and judgement without undue reference to one's personal feelings or thoughts: Try to be objective as you listen to the testimony.

Well, that's no one in here, is it?

Dispassionate means free from or unaffected by strong personal emotions: a journalist should be a dispassionate reporter of fact

Again, that's no one in here.

One more thing. Omega, telling people to go home or leave the US because they apparently don't agree with your definitions ... is that harsh attitude shared by all Republicans? Grow up kid.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Yes, this would give a reduction to the richer people, that are paying higher rates now, but it would make it fair.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Mr. Lunix is a man with two arms. He lives next door to Mr. Cats. The government of the country in which both men reside institutes a law that changes Income Tax to Arm Tax.

The newly appointed arm collectors, who look like storm troopers, except red, arrive at Mr. Lunix's door.

"Open Up. Arm Collection." They demand.

Mr. Lunix opens the door, and invites the Arm Collectors in for a drink of some Lemon Water and cookies. They decline.

"We're here to saw off your arm." One of the Arm Collectors says while pulling out a saw.

"But why?" Mr. Lunix asks. "You haven't taken Mr. Cats' arm."

"Mr. Cats doesn't have an arm to spare. You have two, you can afford to lose one." The leader says.

"But this isn't -" Mr. Lunix starts, but is cut off.

"Fair? You have two arms. That's more than enough for anyone to survive."

"But you didn't take one from Mr. Cats? Why should I have to give my arm, and not him?"

The leader gets impatient. "Because you have two. That is too much. We need your arm."

The Arm Collectors neatly slice off Mr. Lunix's arm, and leave his house.

The man in the trenchcoat looks around wearily, as a bus pulls up in front of him. A gremlin pops out from beneath it.

"Barbeque" It says.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

But you can?

didn't Jesus Christ say greed was bad?

So let me get this straight. You want to prevent me from legislating my religious beliefs, but only so long as they disagree with your values? And as soon as my religious beliefs agree with your values, you want me to support your trying to force them on everyone?

Omega, why do you scream and wail on this issue for so long?

Because you're wrong, and I don't want you confusing others.

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the Republican Party leadership (up to and including Mr. Limbaugh) is rich.

Case in above point, the Democrat leadership is quite wealthy, as well. Al Gore, for instance, owns 500,000 shares of Occidental Petroleum. And again, why in the name of Abe Lincoln do you keep bringing up Rush Limbaugh?

As for UM's example, even if Cats had 6,000,000,000 arms, he would still be being treated unfairly if they removed more than they removed from others, relative to what he has. You want to equalize the outcome. This is not fair, as some do more or more valuble work than others, and thus SHOULD have a better outcome.

You want to treat those who have more than you worse. You want to, in effect, punish success. This is wrong. The only legitimate reason to harm someone is to prevent harm, or punish harm already caused, to an innocent person. If a rich person is not harming anyone, you have no right to punish him.