Minority rule

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Rich people get extra votes?  At what income does this kick in?

Apparently.

We were discussing "minority rule" and someone claimed that rich people should have more say based on the amount of taxes they pay.

I have asked about the details, but there has been no reply.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2020, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently.

We were discussing "minority rule" and someone claimed that rich people should have more say based on the amount of taxes they pay.

I have asked about the details, but there has been no reply.

I went back and read the thread.  I don't think you're framing his position in a genuine way.  He never advocated for what your claiming, in fact he stated, several times, that one person should get one vote.  Trying to twist the positions of others and then force them to correct the mischaracterization is a colossal waste of time if you're (and by "you're" I mean everyone here) actually trying to have an honest debate about a topic.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently you are only entitled to as much life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as you can afford.

If you are born with a trust fund you deserve more votes.

if you want to discuss the point made feel free. If you want to make up something; then you're on your own.

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Trying to twist the positions of others and then force them to correct the mischaracterization is a colossal waste of time if you're (and by "you're" I mean everyone here) actually trying to have an honest debate about a topic.

If we were having an "honest discussion" about voter representation the no one should have brought up income taxes and made comments like this.

(10-20-2020, 12:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So rich pay more, but get the same voice? 

And the really crazy part about his argument is that the red states with the minority of the voters that elect a majority of the Senators are actually the POORER states.  So if he really feels that the people who pay more should have more influence then he would be in favor of the BLUE states getting more influence because they make more money than the red states.
So not only is a minority ruling over a majority they are making the majority pay for it while they suck more from the federal government teat than they pay in.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If we were having an "honest discussion" about voter representation the no one should have brought up income taxes and made comments like this.

And the really crazy part about his argument is that the red states with the minority of the voters that elect a majority of the Senators are actually the POORER states.  So if he really feels that the people who pay more should have more influence then he would be in favor of the BLUE states getting more influence because they make more money than the red states.
So not only is a minority ruling over a majority they are making the majority pay for it while they suck more from the federal government teat than they pay in.

So we're in agreement that if we want this society of "everything equal" then we should each pay our equal share

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2020, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If we were having an "honest discussion" about voter representation the no one should have brought up income taxes and made comments like this.

And the really crazy part about his argument is that the red states with the minority of the voters that elect a majority of the Senators are actually the POORER states.  So if he really feels that the people who pay more should have more influence then he would be in favor of the BLUE states getting more influence because they make more money than the red states.
So not only is a minority ruling over a majority they are making the majority pay for it while they suck more from the federal government teat than they pay in.

Let's say you're 100% correct.  Why would you feed into something you purport to dislike?

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we're in agreement that if we want this society of "everything equal" then we should each pay our equal share

No.  Not at all.  We should all pay out "fair share".  I was not commenting on my position that the rich should pay more.  Instead I was pointing the apparent contradiction in your argument that the rich should have more influence at the same time you are supporting the poor minority of conservative voters having more influence than the wealthier majority of liberal/progressive voters.

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 03:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's say you're 100% correct.  Why would you feed into something you purport to dislike?

I don't understand your question.

What do I dislike that I am "feeding into"?

I think all people should have the same vote.

I feel that the "fair share" for wealthier people is larger than the "fair share" of poor people.  And every proponent of every tax plan in every country in the world agrees with me. Poor and middle class people struggle to pay for the necessities of life.  Wealthy people have much more discretionary income.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2020, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand your question.

That's unfortunate, it's not complicated.

Quote:What do I dislike that I am "feeding into"?

Arguing against points that aren't actually being made.

Quote:I think all people should have the same vote.

Bfine said the same thing, several times.

Quote:I feel that the "fair share" for wealthier people is larger than the "fair share" of poor people.  And every proponent of every tax plan in every country in the world agrees with me. Poor and middle class people struggle to pay for the necessities of life.  Wealthy people have much more discretionary income.  

Sure, and bfine apparently agrees with this as well.  His main point is that with a flat tax rate then everyone should pay the same percentage.  You disagree.  Then your discussion devolved into rich people getting more of a vote.  This isn't the topic at hand.  So why would you continue to feed into it?

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 04:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  Not at all.  We should all pay out "fair share".  I was not commenting on my position that the rich should pay more.  Instead I was pointing the apparent contradiction in your argument that the rich should have more influence at the same time you are supporting the poor minority of conservative voters having more influence than the wealthier majority of liberal/progressive voters.

All I've stated if that we are for equality, we should be all in. Rich shouldn't pay a larger amount of their income than the poor, just as the rich shouldn't get a larger say in our elected officials than the poor.

However, I live in a world where I know this not to be true and each person will support that inequality to support his/her point of view.

The argument can be made that the more successful someone is, the more he/she knows what it takes to make the country successful. Of course that's a very simplistic view; and one I would not advocate at face value, but it does have merit.

i was simply providing a reasoned counter to the OP and for that I got classified as a racist among other things.

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All I've stated if that we are for equality, we should be all in. Rich shouldn't pay a larger amount of their income than the poor, just as the rich shouldn't get a larger say in our elected officials than the poor.

People are equal.

Income and wealth are not equal.  There are poor people who work two jobs and there are rich people born with a trust fund who never work a day in their lives.  I don't measure the value of people by their wealth, and I don't believe that is the principle that the United States stands for. 

There is no contradiction in saying that each person deserves the same vote, but that poor people should pay the same percentage of taxes as the wealthy.  They are two totally different issues.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2020, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All I've stated if that we are for equality, we should be all in. Rich shouldn't pay a larger amount of their income than the poor, just as the rich shouldn't get a larger say in our elected officials than the poor.

However, I live in a world where I know this not to be true and each person will support that inequality to support his/her point of view.

The argument can be made that the more successful someone is, the more he/she knows what it takes to make the country successful. Of course that's a very simplistic view; and one I would not advocate at face value, but it does have merit.

i was simply providing a reasoned counter to the OP and for that I got classified as a racist among other things.

This is disingenuous at best because you don’t believe in equal treatment for women, homosexuals, and transgender individuals and you.

Again, this is not a thread about taxes. Start your own thread.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 04:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People are equal.

Income and wealth are not equal.  There are poor people who work two jobs and there are rich people born with a trust fund who never work a day in their lives.  I don't measure the value of people by their wealth, and I don't believe that is the principle that the United States stands for. 

There is no contradiction in saying that each person deserves the same vote, but that poor people should pay the same percentage of taxes as the wealthy.  They are two totally different issues.

As to the bold: sure you do. You expect people to pay more. That is textbook placing value on a person by wealth, 

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the bold: sure you do. You expect people to pay more. That is textbook placing value on a person by wealth, 

I need to see a link to that textbook.

I never judge people by their tax bracket.  There are honest hardworking people with lots of money and there are also lazy crooks.  Same goes for poor people.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2020, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the bold: sure you do. You expect people to pay more. That is textbook placing value on a person by wealth, 

More BS. Recognizing people have different abilities to pay taxes based upon differing income levels is not the same as judging one person is more valuable than another.

Get back on the thread topic and stop your obvious trolling.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I need to see a link to that textbook.

I never judge people by their tax bracket.  There are honest hardworking people with lots of money and there are also lazy crooks.  Same goes for poor people.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. You never said you judge people by their tax bracket. 

Can you agree that I never said you did? 

[Belsnickel]

I'm genuinely confused, here. It seriously seems like there is an argument for a plutocracy being made if we have a progressive tax structure.

One of the things not being said, here, is that an argument for a progressive tax structure is that those in higher income brackets often receive more in public benefits. I know, everyone likes to think of the "welfare queen" image, but there are studies that support the idea that higher earners tend to receive more in benefits from the government because of certain incentives, utilization of services, etc. Remember the "you didn't build that" comment that everyone took out of context? That was about this sort of thing. High earners often earn their wage with the help of public services, and taxes pay for that.

Anyway, we live in a democratic society, which means how much you pay in taxes is not supposed to impact your voice in government. I understand that our Gini coefficient is more like countries that are pay-to-play than it is like other western democracies, but that doesn't mean we should try to slip further in that direction.

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree. You never said you judge people by their tax bracket. 

Can you agree that I never said you did? 

Okay, replace "judge" with "value".

Now that the semantic nit-picking is resolved care to comment on what I said?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2020, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm genuinely confused, here. It seriously seems like there is an argument for a plutocracy being made if we have a progressive tax structure.

One of the things not being said, here, is that an argument for a progressive tax structure is that those in higher income brackets often receive more in public benefits. I know, everyone likes to think of the "welfare queen" image, but there are studies that support the idea that higher earners tend to receive more in benefits from the government because of certain incentives, utilization of services, etc. Remember the "you didn't build that" comment that everyone took out of context? That was about this sort of thing. High earners often earn their wage with the help of public services, and taxes pay for that.

Anyway, we live in a democratic society, which means how much you pay in taxes is not supposed to impact your voice in government. I understand that our Gini coefficient is more like countries that are pay-to-play than it is like other western democracies, but that doesn't mean we should try to slip further in that direction.

Oh, Matt, you lost ‘em at plutocracy.

[*bfine32*]

Well to be fair I really cannot address what you said because of your "Semantics". It changes the whole meaning.

When you say person A should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes then you are placing a value on person A.

When you say person B should pay less of their income in taxes then you are placing a value on person B.

You judged neither.