This is a kick-ass thread, guys; I'd nominate it for one of the best OT threads ever (how is that possible when I barely contributed to it? Tee hee).

But I want to clarify something about the progressive income tax that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong. People are all taxed equally- what is taxed unequally is the money. Bill Gates doesn't pay any more tax on the first $20,000 of his income than does the McDonalds worker down the street. As one's income goes up, the percentage of the additional income subject to taxation is what increases.

So, to use Rupert's example of a man selling a machine for $100 million-- under a progressive tax system that would cap out at 95% tax after, say, $90 million, only the last $10 million would be subject to a 95% tax rate. Not the full $100 million.

(And in our system, of course, people deduct the cost of creating something as business expenses, further reducing the amount of money eligible for taxation. I doubt that $100 million dollar machine was created for $4.99)

Just wanted to clear that up- it's an easy misconception to have about progressive tax systems.

By the way, Timm, I have several friends who are getting by on $25,000 or less. Not easily, and God help them if they get sick, as they can't afford health care in our messed-up health system, but they're struggling by.

altho it would be a grand scheme if everyone could get along with everyone, help everyone, etc--the reality is that it wouldn't work, as a goodly portion of the humans on this world would be perfectly content to continue to sit on their ass while sharing equally the fruits of others labors. it happens now, it would continue to happen. there are those who struggle mightily, i know my husband and i did for years....some never get out of poverty, some do. the answer isn't to take from those that have and give to those that don't. the answer would be to help those that don't have to achieve--education, opoortunities, job training etc. of course you'll still have those too lazy to try--i have a hard time feeling any sympathy at all for them--and we all can name some like that. a brother in law perhaps, a sister who milks granny while crying about her destitution while she sits home all day doing nothing.

as for health care, it's always astonishing to me when i give a new hire their paperwork to get healthcare, and they don't bother. don't get sick, so why would i want healthcare? they say...and jr is on arkids, so why should i pay for coverage? then there's, her stepdad wants to adopt her, but then we'd have to pay for her coverage, as right now the state covers her since i don't have to claim his income. yeah, cause it's my responsibility to pay for mine, my husband, my kids coverage--and her kids as well. sure, i see the reasoning.
oh, then there's the guy who worked with my husband on 'disability'--he can't work with this bad back...but he sure can hunt, fish, etc....

there is no defense for somebody unjustly imposing their will on another, either by forced labor, or forced redistribution of wealth. if you're going to apply any moral rule, you can not shape it for convenience.

i'm not a liberal or a conservative, not a democrat or republican. i find politicians boorish, and demigogues shallow at best, dishonest as a matter of course. having said that, i could go into a 10 page dissertation on how '60s style liberalism and "lyndon baines johnson" democracy has been the absolute unraveling of the united states and it's moral and ethical foundation. liberalism is not socialism, but it is the super-highway to get there. there is not a single example of socialism ever working in the 5000 years of the human advanced social experiment. it's a pipedream that goes against all the natural behavior of the human species. it's a philosophy that has always looked good on paper, made sense in the head, but hasn't worked because in all the reasoning on the subject over the past 2500 years since plato introduced it, the human spirit, good and bad, has never been taken into serious account. it's the rigidity of mathematical logic applied to something as viscus as the human experiment. the beauty of the unted states and it's constitution was that it made people (if you were white and a landowning male) responsible for yourself, and you had to live with the consequences of your actions. in the past 120 years, we have tried to extend those privileges to all people of this country. unfortunately, that process has been perverted by both left and right. no leftist leaning thought or agenda will ever fix it.

you need to re-think your opinions on communism in particular, and socialism in general. if everybody puts what they have in a bucket, and allows somebody else to distribute it, i, at this very moment, will volunteer to be the person that distributes it. i won't even ask for pay. don't worry about me, i'll get by.

That's a much better response! Well thought out and obviously the product of an insightful person...I disagree though! I don't like labels and that's all words such as "communism" and "socialism" are! Real socialist theory has never been given an opportunity anywhere...it's always been subverted by greedy men pretending to care about others but really looking to gain power and influence. Therein of course lies the rub, it requires a different philosophy to take hold BEFORE it could ever be successfully incorporated. Saying, "OK, now we are going to change society and redistribute wealth" without first instilling a belief that such action is not only just but necessary is doomed to absolute failure...that's what we've always seen, in the USSR, China, Cuba etc...lots of talk about "sharing and brotherhood" from folks merely interested in substituting one power structure for another and since those who wouldn't benefit materially are resistive, the institution of a tyranical state! Plato's concept of the Philosopher Kings would be valid IF everyone accepted the concept. If mankind is to survive, I believe eventual societal evolution into a world characterized by sharing and brotherhood is a must...I agree that won't happen anytime soon and it will never happen by "social planning" legislation either from the left or the right. Really, I can't argue the point much differently...for me, it's a product of my religious and philosophical point of view which is obviously a minority view...for now.

I actually do both things. I invest in some of my own stuff but I also invest in the market. It's good to be diversified.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't have a problem with CEOs making millions of dollars. In a lot of cases they deserve it. But some of theses pay packages are way out of whack. Let's take Dick Grasso for example. He did a great job running the NYSE. I don't think most people would have a had a problem if he walked away with $50-$75 million. But for him to walk away with $200 million was excessive. I think everyone felt that way including the courts who are going to force him to give some of the money back.

i understand what you are saying, and i would submit this for your thoughtful consideration. if we all looked in the mirror, and admitted our weaknesses, and accepted our strengths and the responsibilities that go along with strength, and each individual took responsibility for him/herself, there would be little need for democracy/socialism/theocracy or whatever. things would get done much, much slower, if at all (big government is really the only way to get things done like major road works, distribution of electricity, and such), but people would be more relaxed and content, less inclined to step on each other or impose on one another. the problem is, as soon as one person defers responsibility, both weak and strong, (which is a huge liberal tenent, "lets start a government program") then it all starts to break down.

I basically agree with that...therein lies my point that a basic philosophical/religious change needs to occur...not saying that any one religion has the answers (or doesn't) but certainly emphasis needs to shift within same to where folks first look to what is best for all instead of "self at any cost".

So overall I guess we can say this tax stuff needs to be simplified and fair (it is clear fair means different things to different people).

But it is very difficult to simplify. There are always exceptions and people will always take advantage of the exceptions.

I will make sure I pay at least as much as I am supposed to without trying to get fancy and looking for any loopholes (not that I have enough experience and knowlege to try that). I have yet to be audited so I guess I got that going for me. Maybe ones chance of being audited is directly proproportional to ones income.

i don't want to drag this out much longer, but i think you still need to alter the angle in which you look at this. you're attitude is very judeo-christian (which of course is the culture both you and i were raised in), full of "sacrifice"....."do what's best for the group at your own expense" thinking. it's beyond that. i don't espouse sacrifice at all. sacrifice is encouraged by those that benifit from it. it's unnecessary if people are honest...with themselves and one another.

Actually my attitude is very Wiccan...it's all a matter of belief in all people being part of the One, and of course, karma sure plays a role!