I told Edwards that this article would be seen...

[STAGE 2]

Maybe you could do some math and deal with reality. Some people on the bottom of the scale with mouths to feed cannot afford to pay taxes and still feed their children or care for their families. That is why a sliding scale exists. A flat tax would push some people barely making it into total poverty. I would not think I would have to point that out to you. Not every problem has a simple black and white solution...not matter what FOX news says.

People pay taxes to enable the government to function. Everyone has the same obligation to the government in that the rich person enjoys the benefits of streets, parks, military, police, etc., as much as the poor man does. (There is an extremely strong argument that poor individuals use a vastly disproportionate amount of government services compared to their wealthier counterparts, but I'm not going to go into that now)

As a result, having everyone pay the same percentage is incredibly fair. Your example of people "barely making it" is irrelevant. There will always be people barely making it whether we have a 90% tax rate or no taxes at all. Furthermore, there isn't anything that says that the tax rate must be 20%. I have no doubt that if a flat tax was proposed, people under a certian income would pay no tax at all (which is very similar to what happens today).

However, pointing to a single mom who is trying to feed little Timmy and Johnny doesn't really have anything to do with the tax system. A 10% income tax will no doubt affect someone making 35k a year far more than someone making 100k a year, but thats not the point. ANY financial obligation will be harder on them. Their obligation to the government does not diminish with their salary however.

Taxing the rich more because they won't be affected by it is simply socialism. Its fine if you adhere to that, but at least come out and say it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

As a result, having everyone pay the same percentage is incredibly fair. Your example of people "barely making it" is irrelevant. There will always be people barely making it whether we have a 90% tax rate or no taxes at all.

Wow, not only do your statements not have much financial merit (most just spewing stuff you have heard but not researched) but you are actually saying that drastically increasing the number of people unable to feed their children (some numbers show a flat tax would almost doublt the number of people living under the poverty line) as "irrelevant." Wow...

 

[STAGE 2]

Wow, not only do your statements not have much financial merit (most just spewing stuff you have heard but not researched) but you are actually saying that drastically increasing the number of people unable to feed their children (some numbers show a flat tax would almost doublt the number of people living under the poverty line) as "irrelevant." Wow...

Your background is in military/law enforcement, so I'm going to wager your financial knowledge is just as savy as mine.

However all of this is is irrelevant. Your argument about poverty is especially irrelevant in that it could easily be solved by making all incomes under a certian amount non-taxable.

What is really ridiculous however is your logic. Lets agree with your premise for a minute and say that a flat tax would make things very hard on the poor. By taking this position you are making an argument for keeping taxes low on poor people, not increasing them for the rich.

You dont have any justification for a progressive tax scale other than "they can afford it". If those with a modest income are taxed at a certian rate, then those with an extensive income should be as well. The rich will always pay more due to the percentage, but there isn't any valid justification for increasing their rate.

Remember, the purpose of taxes is to fund the government, not as a penalty for success.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Your background is in military/law enforcement, so I'm going to wager your financial knowledge is just as savy as mine.

Actually I have been in the military and law enforcementbut my background is primarily in mental health/psychology. A field very dependant on public funding and tax dollars. When Forbes was running the company I worked for payed alot of attention the the effects of a flat tax system on the public health field and it was not good. The estimates where that our loads of people needing public assistance would more than double.

However all of this is is irrelevant. Your argument about poverty is especially irrelevant in that it could easily be solved by making all incomes under a certian amount non-taxable.

And at what stage would that be? And what about the people that could afford to pay taxes at a half rate? And then is that income cut off dependant on having a certain number of dependants? If so, how many? What if you make under the cut off and have no kids? What if you make over the cut off but have several adopted children? Then what if you want to dontae money to a charity? See how it is almost impossible to have s imple flat tax system?

 

[STAGE 2]

And at what stage would that be? And what about the people that could afford to pay taxes at a half rate? And then is that income cut off dependant on having a certain number of dependants? If so, how many? What if you make under the cut off and have no kids? What if you make over the cut off but have several adopted children? Then what if you want to dontae money to a charity? See how it is almost impossible to have s imple flat tax system?

You're missing the point. Some very savvy financial people could figure out the proper number and all of the details. Thats not the issue.

The issue is, whatever number that happens to be, you can't give me a proper justification for taxing people that make 50k more than that number other than they can afford it.

If we are going to cut poor people slack then we should cut the rich slack too. Since you worked with public health, you know full well that the poor are far and away the greatest users of government programs.

It makes absolutely no sense in society that claims to value freedom and independence to force certian people to contribute more for things that they don't use simply because OTHERS DECIDE they can weather it.

 

[WeedWacker]

I think the foolish idea is that these people who are already barely making it will be worse off because their tax rate will not change (according to your logic of a flat tax). You say that by dropping taxes to euqual percentages that there will be an increase for some people. IIRC the original flat tax projection plan in 2000 was for 15% which is 5% lower than current taxes for low hourly wages (I got taxed 20% for $7.25/hr) yet I would not have made any less if yuou were taxed 20 insted of 40 or whatever. In fact I would still be in the same boat. The people most likely to be affected by this would be smaller businesses and even then anyone who has a business of their own should know that your business is not always a sure form of income because economic forces can change so drastically very quickly. There would be a plan B should the economics of your business go down the tubes, mainly in the forms of investments such as stocks or bonds. And it is just foolhardy for people to own a business and assume that the same yearly capital will always be your set income. It can change due to demand or property taxes or natural disasters. It is also foolhardy to live at your maximum expense. It is not good to use every single cent you make to support your house and posessions.

Another reason some of these people are "barely making it" is because they are 35 years old and working full time in McDonalds flipping burgers saying "Do you want apple pie with that sir?" (throw in any accent, probably mexican but also could be asian, african/ghetto-speak, or some white guy missing a few teeth. I am in Minnesota right now and I have yet to go to the McDonalds two blocks from where I am to be served by a non-latino). The thought that someone assumes that they should have a liveable income on somthing called "minimum wage" is just ignorant. From what I have been told and what I have seen is that minimum wage was designed for student workers. Places like grocery stores, fast food/restaurants and other unskilled occupations were intended for unskilled laborers who were in the process of learning a skill.

 

[Danger Dave]

If he committed a crime, why wasn't he charged?

I work with a lot of surveyors - you would be hard pressed to find one that's been doing the job very long and has not been threatened with a gun while doing their job. That's after sending letters to all the homeowners notifying them that you'll be there, wearing hard hats & blaze orange vests to work in (one got a gun pulled on him by a cop who accused them of "sneaking around" in said attire).

Unless the laws have changed, threatening to kill someone for being on your property is a crime (with the possible exception of Texas), unless you reasonably feel endangered. Even if it isn't a crime where you are, it's probably not smart.

It happens routinely, yet I've never known a surveyor to press charges.

 

[badbob]

Unless the laws have changed, threatening to kill someone for being on your property is a crime (with the possible exception of Texas), unless you reasonably feel endangered. Even if it isn't a crime where you are, it's probably not smart.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but does having a gun in your posession constitute "threatening to kill someone"? If that's the case, then every cop I've ever known threatened my life because they were all armed.

badbob

 

[SecDef]

From the AP:

But Johnson defended the occasion he brandished a gun, saying those on his land didn't have the proper approval.

"Brandish" doesn't exactly indicate it was holstered. But the media does tend to use words inappropriately.

 

[KpdPipes]

"Unless the laws have changed, threatening to kill someone for being on your property is a crime (with the possible exception of Texas), unless you reasonably feel endangered. Even if it isn't a crime where you are, it's probably not smart."

All depends, if your property is posted "No Tresspassing" then i doubt it is a crime.

 

[Danger Dave]

KpdPipes, I believe you're wrong. Deadly force - or the threat thereof - is only allowed to defend life & limb, not property. Texas does have an exception to this law.

badbob, how he approached them is the question - if he was armed, and told them to leave his property, no problem, that's okay. If they're legally entitled to be there, they'll come back with a deputy. If he pointed a firearm at them as he did so - without any reasonable expectation that they presented a threat to him - then what he did was wrong and illegal. I'm afraid there are some people who'd take pot shots at the meter reader if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[joab]

But Johnson defended the occasion he brandished a gun, saying those on his land didn't have the proper approval.

Nothing in that statement shows that Johnson "brandished" a gun. only that the reporter refers to the incident as brandishing.

To some merely having a gun is brandishing whether it be on your hip, in your hand or back in the truck in a back window gun rack.

The term brandishing is as misused by reporters as the term racism is

You'll also note that Ms Edwards was directly quoted regarding the incident but Johnson merely had a comment attributed to him, in reporterdom that usually indicates a skirting of the truth