I don't think there is a good argument for why you should get more of my money

[Anonymous]

The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Of course not; I am in favor of social security, and many other forms of social programs. I just think that once a person's effective tax rate gets into the 40+% range -- which is about what I pay once you take federal, state, and local taxes into account -- you are taking too much from one person to give it to someone else, which has become a major function of our government. And to read many of the posters on this board, no amount of taxes would ever be too high. It is shocking to me that so many people who are concerned about civil rights and liberties don't view people's right to retain the fruits of their labor as having any significance at all.

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to briefly respond to the topic: It's not your money. It's the government's money.

[Anonymous]

Well well. Ironically the thread below this one is FCPS 1/2 day kindergarten. Some rather arbitrary and political decisions went into who got full day so some parents use after tax income to pay for child care from 12-3pm.

Before the economy tanked FCPS was putting it in at Springhill yet 5 min utes away Colvin Run was still going to be 1/2 day. yeah Fairfax.

What's better and more fair? 1/2 day for all with onsite childcare charged on a sliding scale? Yes i think so.

Do you pay more tax for social security based on some local whim? No. But more $ go out in earmarks for local federal stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Of course not; I am in favor of social security, and many other forms of social programs. I just think that once a person's effective tax rate gets into the 40+% range -- which is about what I pay once you take federal, state, and local taxes into account -- you are taking too much from one person to give it to someone else, which has become a major function of our government. And to read many of the posters on this board, no amount of taxes would ever be too high. It is shocking to me that so many people who are concerned about civil rights and liberties don't view people's right to retain the fruits of their labor as having any significance at all.

Social security is "taking from one person to give it to someone else."

Why should scarce tax dollars be going to further feather the nests of well-off retirees (I'm not talking about folks who'd be eating Alpo otherwise?)

[Anonymous]

Two things for the OP and the similar minded. First:

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Where exactly do you think you'd be without the civilization our taxes (and our forebears' taxes) built? Paving your own roads and building your own bridges, I'm sure. Good luck making a 6-figure income without the infrastructure others sacrificed for so you could build your personal fortune.

Second:

Wealthy people MUST pay a higher share of the tax burden because it is fair for them to do so. Certain government services, like the SEC, for example, serve almost exclusively the interests of the wealthy and upper-middle classes. I can guarantee you that a poor working class family does not rely on the regulation of their securities. Same goes for other examples -- wealthy people have a bigger footprint and consume more resources than poor people (fuel oil, heating oil, electricity, road wear and tear, land, etc). Not to mention that your net pay, even after your tax burden, far exceeds the per capita GDP (by about six times). Part of the reason we have taxes is to avert the establishment of a perpetual, moneyed aristocracy (because aristocracies are -- you guessed it! -- bad for capitalistic growth, upward mobility, bad for stable democracies, and therefore bad for our future). Rich people keeping a larger portion of the pie and keeping it all is just bad news bears.

You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Please, this person (and their parents) live on an island, where they have independently invented electricity, computers, and internet connectivity, without the help of any government infrastructure or investment. They clearly have never benefited from things like scientific grants, social security, mortgage deductions, or child credits. That would make them hypocrites!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Of course not; I am in favor of social security, and many other forms of social programs. I just think that once a person's effective tax rate gets into the 40+% range -- which is about what I pay once you take federal, state, and local taxes into account -- you are taking too much from one person to give it to someone else, which has become a major function of our government. And to read many of the posters on this board, no amount of taxes would ever be too high. It is shocking to me that so many people who are concerned about civil rights and liberties don't view people's right to retain the fruits of their labor as having any significance at all.

Social security is "taking from one person to give it to someone else."

Why should scarce tax dollars be going to further feather the nests of well-off retirees (I'm not talking about folks who'd be eating Alpo otherwise?)

Because these "well-off retirees" worked and paid into SS and they are entitled to draw on the system. If Congress wants to institute a Means test, then it cannot be retroactive and should begin with a test means for everyone paying into SS beginning Jan. 1, 2011. Those who paid into it prior to this date should still be able to receive their SS without a means test. This, however, is never going to happen because then Members of Congress would not be able to draw their social security.

OP, the govt. doesn't owe you a good explanation and they aren't going to give you one with which you will agree. Tough toodles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Of course not; I am in favor of social security, and many other forms of social programs. I just think that once a person's effective tax rate gets into the 40+% range -- which is about what I pay once you take federal, state, and local taxes into account -- you are taking too much from one person to give it to someone else, which has become a major function of our government. And to read many of the posters on this board, no amount of taxes would ever be too high. It is shocking to me that so many people who are concerned about civil rights and liberties don't view people's right to retain the fruits of their labor as having any significance at all.

Social security is "taking from one person to give it to someone else."

Why should scarce tax dollars be going to further feather the nests of well-off retirees (I'm not talking about folks who'd be eating Alpo otherwise?)

Because these "well-off retirees" worked and paid into SS and they are entitled to draw on the system. If Congress wants to institute a Means test, then it cannot be retroactive and should begin with a test means for everyone paying into SS beginning Jan. 1, 2011. Those who paid into it prior to this date should still be able to receive their SS without a means test. This, however, is never going to happen because then Members of Congress would not be able to draw their social security.

OP, the govt. doesn't owe you a good explanation and they aren't going to give you one with which you will agree. Tough toodles.

New poster here. Then we should just limit them to what they pay plus a rate of return. It seems fair, and that will make the entire system solvent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two things for the OP and the similar minded. First:

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Where exactly do you think you'd be without the civilization our taxes (and our forebears' taxes) built? Paving your own roads and building your own bridges, I'm sure. Good luck making a 6-figure income without the infrastructure others sacrificed for so you could build your personal fortune.

Second:

Wealthy people MUST pay a higher share of the tax burden because it is fair for them to do so. Certain government services, like the SEC, for example, serve almost exclusively the interests of the wealthy and upper-middle classes. I can guarantee you that a poor working class family does not rely on the regulation of their securities. Same goes for other examples -- wealthy people have a bigger footprint and consume more resources than poor people (fuel oil, heating oil, electricity, road wear and tear, land, etc). Not to mention that your net pay, even after your tax burden, far exceeds the per capita GDP (by about six times). Part of the reason we have taxes is to avert the establishment of a perpetual, moneyed aristocracy (because aristocracies are -- you guessed it! -- bad for capitalistic growth, upward mobility, bad for stable democracies, and therefore bad for our future). Rich people keeping a larger portion of the pie and keeping it all is just bad news bears.

You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

Rock on! I so agree with this. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because these "well-off retirees" worked and paid into SS and they are entitled to draw on the system. If Congress wants to institute a Means test, then it cannot be retroactive and should begin with a test means for everyone paying into SS beginning Jan. 1, 2011. Those who paid into it prior to this date should still be able to receive their SS without a means test. This, however, is never going to happen because then Members of Congress would not be able to draw their social security.

Ya know what? We're in a budgetary crisis, unless you think that budget deficits of 10% of GDP are sustainable for more than 4-5 years. Something has to give, and we can't freeze civil servant pay and get anything near a balanced budget. Some of the sacred cows -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense -- are going to have to be gored.

Any wealthy retiree (one who gets less than 1/3 of her/his income from SS) who protests a means test in this fiscal environment/economy is a goddamned welfare queen, the same as some woman having 5 kids by 5 different men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are lucky to be well off, so show some freaking noblesse oblige and pay your share! Ever hear the phrase "there but for the grace of god go I?" Even with your hard work, you could vary well have gotten a devastating illness or been in a tragic accident and lived your life as a poor or working-class person. You would probably have a more balanced, less self-centered attitude if you'd ever endured the suffering so many of the working class have!

Rant noted, but it doesn't really say very much. No one is talking about not paying taxes -- I do, lots and lots of them -- nor are they saying that people with more money should not pay more -- I agree with that, as well. There's an argument for a flat tax, of course, but I don't find progressive taxation in principle -- the question is one of degree.

Now that we've left those straw man aside, I simply believe that there is a limit, and enough is enough. Obviously you disagree. What I don't understand is why. You probably work, you get paid, you feel entitled to keep what you earn, subject to reasonable taxation to pay the bills of government. If you're making less than six-figures, your effective tax rate is probably in the 15-20% range. Why so quick not to extend the same consideration to others, just because they make more? Especially when those people are already paying far higher tax rates and vastly more money in absolute terms. Is there any limit at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Please, this person (and their parents) live on an island, where they have independently invented electricity, computers, and internet connectivity, without the help of any government infrastructure or investment. They clearly have never benefited from things like scientific grants, social security, mortgage deductions, or child credits. That would make them hypocrites!

If you have to distort other people's views in order to make yourself feel like you are right, perhaps you need to reconsider your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem, OP, is that no one needs a good argument. You have the money, others want to use it to benefit someone else, and they have the votes. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Democrats want you to be the dinner. As the economy worsens, more and more people are going to come around to that point of view. It really is about that simple, and there is not much to be done about it now. Too many people feel entitled to government benefits paid for by someone else, and we're past the point of no return on that issue, in my view.

Do you tell your parents to give back their Social Security?

Please, this person (and their parents) live on an island, where they have independently invented electricity, computers, and internet connectivity, without the help of any government infrastructure or investment. They clearly have never benefited from things like scientific grants, social security, mortgage deductions, or child credits. That would make them hypocrites!

If you have to distort other people's views in order to make yourself feel like you are right, perhaps you need to reconsider your position.

If people are oblivious to the hypocrisy of their statements, perhaps they need to reconsider their ability to perceive objective reality.