Is the main point of being a progressive to tax the haves to provide for individual have nots?

[dkf]

Can a person be a progressive if they don't believe in providing for able bodied individuals for a persons entire life?

[xchrom]

1. ...

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

147. .

:eyes:

[svsuman23]

2. if you want to word it that way.

[SharonAnn]

39. I think it really recognizes and covers their cost to society. Wealthy

people benefit greatly from many things:

- Laws and regulations protecting property
- Laws and contracts protecting individual and business contracts (money)
- Laws and regulations protecting banking and investments
- Law enforcement protecting their property
- Services like the FAA. They fly a LOT more than low income people.
- Roads, bridges, schools that provide them investment and human capital for businesses.

etc., etc.

[LiberalEsto]

3. The point is to help level the playing field

under the law so that everyone in America has a chance of equal justice, and equal opportunity.

Unfortunately we've been going in the opposite direction, with the government bending over backwards to help the rich and powerful while forcing the middle class to bear the brunt of taxation and losing their jobs, savings and homes. And basically leaving the poor to rot.

[mmonk]

4. Progressive taxation pays the bills for a society to provide adequate

services. Your question has a right wing feel to it.

[dkf]

5. Progressive taxation can be about providing for those general items that benefit us all

Like roads, schools, fighter jets, bridges etc. But the general welfare is defined as helping all groups, not just a few.

So you can have a progressive tax system that charges the rich more, but which is limited in how it is spent to general, not individual needs.

[mmonk]

8. Your second sentence is the general meme of the right when

it talks about tax cuts. You could get a job as lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce with that line.

[Lasher]

14. And what of regressive taxes?

In your world, can regressive taxes only be used for individual needs?

[msongs]

26. tax breaks written BY the wealthy for the wealthy benefit....the wealthy the most. whatta shock eh?

and who benefits the most from government sponsored programs? poor people? well that's a funny answer but it is wealthy people who benefit most from government spending designed to keep the money in the hands of wealthy people who have acquired their wealth from the labor of people who did all the real work.

[boston bean]

31. Also, do the wealthy pay 30-40% on all their income?

They are being subsidized off our backs.

Do away with all their loop holes and tax them as we are taxed on just about every red cent we earn.

[dkf]

40. This is exactly what Obama wants to do...get rid of loopholes and streamline things.

It is one area that looks to be getting broad support.

[boston bean]

41. Really, I thought he was into giving corporations some more tax breaks.....

and extending bush's, no obama's tax cut for the wealthy 2%.

[dkf]

44. Get rid of special loopholes which only corps with fancy lawyers and CPAs can use

And lower rates across the board.

This should benefit the smaller players and create the level playing field we all love.

[boston bean]

55. It's not happening and it really is not in relation to your OP.

You don't want money to go to the lazy ass have nots, directly.

That is what your OP was originally.

Then, uou miss the part in these later replies that the tax cuts for the wealthy remain in place.

[dkf]

70. I'm just trying to draw the distinction. What makes a person a progressive vs a centrist.

This is the line I see. What is yours?

[dkf]

42. Well I guess we get to see if our reps are bought or not because most people love the idea

of simplifying the tax code.

[mmonk]

87. Especially those that want to flatten it.

The rich can pay the same percentage as the poor. That limits what can be done to meet a nation's needs as average wages fall.

[KT2000]

103. here is something you are

missing:
A small town has a polluting paper mill as its main source of jobs. The type of pollution that comes from the mill is known to cause learning disabilities in children, thyroid illnesses, respiratory illnesses, several types of cancer and more.
Many families are supported by the work at the mill and the owners of the mill threaten to close if they have to gear up to meet current pollution guidelines. Arms are twisted and the mill is allowed to operate as is.

While some have jobs at the mill, others - especially those in the lower income neighborhoods that get the worst of the releases, get sick. Some are children who will be dogged by lifelong learning disbilities and other mental conditions. Others will get cancer and be fired from the jobs where they work when they are too sick - and lose their health insurance. All they can do then is apply for disability and hope Medicaid will cover them.

We are not as individual as we would like to think we are.

[CrispyQ]

6. It's cheaper & more efficient for everyone to pitch in to provide a social safety net for all,

than for each of us to provide our own safety net. But the rich don't want that. They easily provide their own safety net & don't give a fuck if anyone else can provide their own safety net. The greed & selfishness of the elite is stunning. The "I've got mine. Fuck you." attitude in this country comes from decades of placing the individual over community, things over people. We now have a culture that encourages & rewards bad behavior & we wonder why the public discourse is so damaging.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boston bean]

7. Am I on DU?

I guess now that Obama has spoken and endorsed republican policy, it's the new progressive and liberal thing to do....

[dkf]

12. I'm just wondering what capsulizes progressive thought

And where the country is in relation to it.

[WinkyDink]

18. How can any Democrat not know this answer?

Oh, wait.

[dkf]

53. I'm a Democrat who believes in progressive taxation and an emergency safety net.

But I'm not a far lefty.

You guys make me wonder where I am politically though. Yet when I hear Obama I realize I'm pretty mainstream.

[TBF]

69. You may wonder where you are politically, but I have no doubt whatsoever. nt

[dkf]

76. I'm wondering where you guys are.

And trying to figure out where Dems are and where this country is.

I spend so much time here that I sometimes think it is more fully representative of the country than it probably is, excluding the Bachmann types of course.

[TBF]

85. Personally I'm leftist, so I am going to be an extremist on this site -

no doubt about that. Especially during this administration.

You've got to figure out how far right you are. As you said, maybe you're middle of the road considering where Obama is, but realize Obama is to the right of Eisenhower (who increased the folks eligible for social security rather than advocating cutting the program).

But I wouldn't say that's "where the country is". Many folks are identifying with "being republican" because that's fashionable right now in most circles (not in elitist circles - I'm talking about every day working folks). But if you sit down and talk to folks one to one I think you'll find they want jobs, they want to be able to afford their health care, and they would like social security to be maintained.

Try taking this test and see where you come out - http://www.politicalcompass.org/. Obama is going to be in the upper right corner. I fall down southwest of Ghandi as a leftist/libertarian (as do many on this site). Give it a whirl, it's very interesting.

[Bluebear]

132. +

[immoderate]

97. What do you do when the work runs out?

--imm

[white_wolf]

122. I can answer this

You sound like a person who would agree with the DLC and the New Democrats. I wouldn't call you a Liberal/progressive. This was meant for the OP not some of the above repliers.

[boston bean]

20. so cynical, isn't it and isn't Obama. Yes let's win elections

by making the down on their luck middle class and poverty the boogie man and the reason for all our woe's.

If those unworthy fucks would just a job, get off their ass, and stop taking hand outs, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Yet we have nearly 10% unemployment.

Yet, this is so simple, and yes simply American.

We can't do better, right?

Our leaders cave and do not even utter a response or else they could be labeled commie socialists taking over america.

Why do you think the liberal progressive side is railroaded like this by those in power in both parties? Why do you think Dem leaders are so mealy mouthed about it?

To me, populism is a great message and one I think one most Americans would agree with. They don't want corporations bailed out and main street left to die.

Ask yourself why our leaders never speak up? Could it be they don't want to win that message. They would prefer to win with the money, not the people. I think that is your answer.

[dkf]

36. That actually seems to be the divide to me between progressives and centrists.

Centrists believe in providing the tools to get ahead and would prefer to foster education and jobs instead of long term direct funds. Progressives believe in direct funding. Is that a fair assessment?

[boston bean]

45. Are you talking about people on unemployment insurance and the "welfare queens".

I am not a progressive, I am a liberal. but I would guess progressive and liberals believe in doing both.

Because we don't always believe that people who need help are losers!

[JHB]

138. I don't think that's a fair assessment. Closer to a caricature, in fact.

Progressinves don't "belive in" direct funding, they just recognize it as one of the tools in the toolbox.

I'm not sure what you're thinking of when you refer to "direct funds" as a negative (food stamps? unemployment insurance? public assistance? housing allowances? Social Security?), so I won't put words in your mouth. I simply request that you extend the same courtesy and don't put words in mine or others, such as the straw man set up in your OP.

Please also keep in mind that political terminology has been yanked far to the right over the past few decades. That's one of the factors complicating this discussion. When the "center" keeps moving, is "centrism" the mark of someone being reasonable? or just following the path of least resistance?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

145. No, I don't think it is.

In America it's the progressives who want to spend more on education, and the centrists who don't. "Foster" is a weasel word in this context.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

27. Actually I realized from the 2010 piece that Obama has tried to do something about this through HCR.

He saw what I saw and made it a little bit better, but it's still a problem.

I think people who ignore what I posted earlier won't understand the point of what is going to be happening in congress.

Hannah can smack me down all she wants, but the reality of the situation will still be there and is something our President will be attending to as a steward of the country and of our future.

[Lasher]

46. I disagree with much of what you come up with.

You understand there is a difference between disagreeing and ignoring, right? And just because I don't buy what you're selling, it doesn't mean I don't understand it.

There is a 'reality of the situation' out there somewhere, but I think your views are inconsistent with it.

[girl gone mad]

111. Pathetic, isn't it?

Good people on the left get banned while the bots are free to spout right wing talking points day after day.

[pampango]

9. Progressive taxation to fund an effective social safety net? Absolutely. Not sure what you mean by

"providing for able bodied individuals for a persons entire life". A safety should be there for anyone who needs it, not just "able bodied individuals".

[WinkyDink]

19. It's a wise-guy post, not a serious inquiry.

[woo me with science]

10. No. It's to build a coalition to ensure that government does not allow

a small minority of extremely wealthy individuals to structure the entire system so that they are systematically impoverishing the rest of us.

[Little Star]

13. What you said! n/t

[dkf]

49. But what is impoverishing us?

Is it the wealthy individuals or is it the globalization that causes such wealthy individuals and low wages for the rest?

I see wealthy individuals and low wages for the rest as the byproduct of a system. Am I wrong?

[DireStrike]

52. The globalization is a policy of the wealthy individuals.

They pursue globalization as a policy because it allows them to make more money.

[dkf]

63. And the people don't enjoy cheap prices?

Look if it were only beneficial for a few, it wouldn't work. The fact is that a lot of people enjoy the fact that things are cheap. If we want to fix this we will have to raise prices, either through currency or tariffs, both of which mean higher prices. Will the American people be supportive? Those who don't have jobs may be able to as we compete better and employ more, but those who have jobs will find their purchasing power eroded.

[DireStrike]

94. That's only half of the puzzle

Purchasing power is down due to loss of wages due to jobs leaving the country. There's been complete stagnation or decline in the inflation-adjusted median income over the last 30 or 40 years.

I like how you say "it wouldn't work" as if it is working. The economy and the country in general have been on a downhill slope for a long time now. Just because the world hasn't ended overnight doesn't mean the policies are good. Things are getting worse overall.

[DireStrike]

50. Ah, you said that much better than I did.

[JVS]

112. But that would be unamerican!

;-)

[oldhippie]

11. It's a little early in the thread yet, but ....

...... I think you're about to find out that the answer to your question is a resounding "Take from the rich and give to the poor." Each and every poor.

[WinkyDink]

17. Well, "oldhippie", you must've forgotten your "old hippie" roots.

Hippie, MA.

[devilgrrl]

120. Sounds like something a bunch of oldhippies would say... in 'Atlas Shrugged'

:eyes:

[WinkyDink]

15. Are you equating "able bodied" with "employed"? Have you noticed the employment picture? And

what's with your straw-man of "entire life"?

Let's put it this way: YOU are not a Progressive. Now define it from there.

[66 dmhlt]

16. We can put you down as "Against a Level Playing Field"

[dkf]

23. No. A level playing field is a government respossibility.

This is interesting...taxing the haves to provide for individual have nots = leveling the playing field? Is that the traditional way to view the level playing field?

[joshcryer]

71. A kid from a rich neighborhood has two baseballs. You're the kids dad.

Your kid comes home to you one day and says "My ex-friend Jimmy from across the water canal tried taking my baseball today!"

How do you respond?

"Jimmy, the other side of the water canal is a different district with different tax rates, which indicates that Jimmy's family is poor, therefore I suggest you not talk to him at all."

"Jimmy, the other side of the water canal is a different district with different tax rates, which indicates that Jimmy's family is poor. Since you have two baseballs, why don't you give him one of yours that you have extra?"

[blindpig]

73. Nope, the traditional way is to just take all their shit.

And every single time, they bring it upon themselves.

The poor mouthing of the defenders of privilege is ludicrous.

[StarsInHerHair]

133. and just how does a non-working trust fund rich person GET their money?

you do realize some of the wealthy are not productive?

[JHB]

139. When the haves use their "have" to squeeze more from the have-nots, yes...

...that is one of the ways of leveling the playing field.

You make it more attractive to invest a little more of their "have" in the have-nots instead of just accumulating more "have".

[The_Commonist]

21. No.

The point of progressive taxation is to tax the haves to make it easier for the have nots to become haves. Also to provide a safety net so that if some of the haves fall on hard times, they do not quickly become have nots. And finally, as far as individual have nots are concerned... there will always be a small percentage of the population that is simply incapable of taking care of themselves. Usually for medical and or mental reasons. Society should take care of those people, because the alternative is to kill them. That becomes a slippery slope, because then the question becomes - who gets to decide?

I don't believe progressivism is about providing for able bodied/minded individuals for their entire life.

[StarsInHerHair]

134. you said it best the commonist

nt

[QC]

24. Yes, that's exactly it. You have figured us out.

We hope to destroy all the productive, upright, respectable people for the sake of the welfare queens and single mothers.

Just like Rush has been saying for all these years.

[bobbolink]

32. Exactly. The Raygun democrats weren't enough... now we have the RUSH dems, and proud of it.

See how easy it was for the RW to win?

Now comes the planning of how they are going to get rid of us "have-nots".

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. Best post on this thread.

[blindpig]

28. Sure you can be a 'progressive'...

Now, define the term.

Call yourself whatever you want if it makes you feel good.

Truth is, the term is so mushy as to be useless. A Teddy Roosevelt 'progressive'? Or perhaps a Keynesian? Or mebbe a sorta quasi socialist?

Clearing away the crap, you either support the ruling class or you support the working class, all other designations are meaningless.

[Recursion]

35. Hell, Hoover was a "progressive"

Doesn't mean people who call themselves today that like him.

[QC]

64. "Progressive" has been redefined in these parts as

"any person who thinks that progress is a good thing."

By that standard, everyone is a progressive, as even George W. Bush believed that he was making progress.

Hell, Stalin made enormous progress in industrializing the Soviet Union. I guess that makes him a progressive.

[socialist_n_TN]

106. Pithy.........

:) But pig don't be so obtuse! Tell us how you REALLY feel. :rofl:

[bobbolink]

29. This is the conservative dems answer to "have-nots"

[StarsInHerHair]

135. sadly true, look at AZ, those 'death panels' were simply another Rightie

projection. But the ranks of the Middle Class have always come from the poor...alas, over generations they have forgotten that; Middle Class is just another description for "found a good paying job". India and China are growing their Middle Classes because of our outsourcing policies. We need to look at protecting American workers, I'm sick of corporations chasing the world's cheapest workers....China is beginning to blame American companies for their lack of worker safety standards, this isn't a good trend.

[suffragette]

30. Society is comprised of many individuals

But then, you knew that already.

[Iggo]

33. PUSH!!!

[Recursion]

34. That question has been a fault line on the left for some time

Part of the various solutions to it are based on the idea that enough "individual" poverty itself becomes a systemic issue.

[kentuck]

38. The main point?

I think of progressivism not as an individual good, but as a good to society as a whole. The 40-hour week, the minimum wage, Social Security, etc. The progressive tax is only a part of helping to make a better society.

[jtown1123]

43. What on earth are some of these people doing which warrants billion dollar paychecks?

I find it baffling that someone who makes billions or millions more than I do thinks they should pay less in taxes because they are somehow magically creating "jobs" (not). We should be taxed on what we can afford to pay. It's not "punishing" someone for doing well. It's asking them to help pay into the system which afforded them such great wealth and prosperity. Unless your curing cancer, you don't need to make millions, I am sorry if that is harsh, but that's how I feel. If we all have enough money to feed our families, live in safe and clean environments, that provides more shared prosperity. I don't see why this concept is lost on Republicans (and you) apparently.

[DireStrike]

54. Well as somebody said, they are working 90 hour weeks

Of course, everyone who works a 90 hour week gets a billion dollar paycheck, and vice versa.

[jtown1123]

60. It just blows my mind the way people think sometimes...

[haele]

100. Define "working 90 hours a week" -

At as one goes up in corporate levels, hosting a company event or fancy dinner party can be defined as "work".

Haele

[PassingFair]

47. Is the main point of of your post to show what a wanker you are?

No, you don't get to call yourself a progressive.

Ever.

I'm still waiting for your check.

While you're writing it, can I have
the 50% of my home's value returned
to me by hard-working Y-O-U as well?

[DireStrike]

48. Personally I think taxing the haves serves its own purpose

Almost regardless of what the money is spent on, it prevents power from concentrating in too few hands.

[socialist_n_TN]

108. And there's another purpose to it too............

Anytime wealth disparity gets TOO great, everybody in the "have not" class gets together and TAKES IT AWAY FROM THEM! Usually violently. It's so much easier to just tax it into a fairer distribution. You would think that the "haves" would realize that, but for some reason every time they think it's somehow going to be different.

[bobbolink]

114. This time it *may* be different... drugs are more prevalent, and the weaponry of the

Have Class is more powerful than ever before.

[socialist_n_TN]

115. Maybe.........

but I know that nothing will change until the capitalist class feels some fear that this MIGHT happen.

It really depends on how many people get so desparate that it's worth their life. Or rather that their life is not worth continuing on the way it is. If a critical mass of that attitude is reached, then it explodes. And we DO outnumber the bastards.

[bobbolink]

116. Why do you insist on putting the onus on the most vulnerable, the most desparate, those without the

resources that even you have?

What is up with that?

[socialist_n_TN]

123. Bobbie, I'm not putting the onus on anybody, .........

It was actually more of an observation of what I think WILL happen and when. Which was what the post you replied to was about. You asked about what may NOT happen and why and I just tried to explain when I believe the critical mass would be reached. I doubt it will happen before a larger part of the population than now is in a position where it's not worth going on anymore the way things ARE. Historically, that's the way it's always happened.

Hell, that's why I'm a believer in progressive taxation and a strong social safety net. It's much easier and more peaceful to redistribute and make sure EVERYBODY has the basics covered by using the tax structure, than by replaying the French Revolution.

[bobbolink]

124. Socialists claim to be all about "the people" (of course, its only the workers, but nebbamind)

yet it never seems to occur that instead of sitting back and talking about capitalism, it would be HELPFUL to actually take an activist stance.

It's always up to poor people themselvea to reach a "critical mass" and revolt.... thereby highly increasing the liklihood they will be killed in the struggle.

There are things you could do right now to help change this mess.

[socialist_n_TN]

125. OK. But what makes you think I won't also be "killed...........

in the struggle"? If, God forbid, something like this DOES happen, do you think I'm just going to sit it out? Actually, I would expect to be taken care of, one way or another (death or prison), even BEFORE the critical mass is reached. It's not like they're going to let folks with my political beliefs run free stirring up shit.

BTW, I've done what I could through the years and expect to continue as long as I breathe. Is it enough? Probably not, but I do what I can.

[DireStrike]

141. It's not that people claim nothing should be done until this point is reached

(And to be fair, a lot of people actually do. Convenient for them, sucks for society.)

Rather, it's just observational. We should try to do everything we can, but historically nothing has really happened until things have gotten really bad for a lot of people.

A big question is, of course, how bad is too bad? You never know when things are gonna break down, so one should always keep pushing.

[tblue37]

128. See: Tunisia; Egypt. nt

[TBF]

51. Is the main point of your posts to desiminate the information you watch on FAUX news daily? nt

[joshcryer]

58. Nah, DU has a bunch of die-hard capitalists who are socially liberal, but fisically "who knows."

[OneGrassRoot]

59. They're not socially liberal either. n/t

[joshcryer]

62. Eh, you get banned if you're not socially liberal.

I have been on the hot seat before for being ambiguous and borderline trolling, etc. In the end I always refer to my avatar.

[TBF]

65. Oh I don't think "who knows" covers it - you were more on point when

you said they are die-hard capitalists. This one in particular does not post about social issues.

[joshcryer]

67. Well, it's all over the place, imo.

I am ardently anti-rent, but I very very rarely make the case here because, well, it would cause a flutter of craziness I am not prepared to defend. But I do know and accept that there are DUers who are landlords and I just don't chastise them or criticize them for my own sanity. DU is a Democratic Party forum, not an anarchist-crazy-anti-capitalist forum.

[joshcryer]

56. A woman was recently jailed because she sent her children to another school district.

The school district she can afford to live in is bottom of the barrel, fails the report cards across the boards. However, she falsified reports and puts her kids on a school bust in a separate district with better scorecards. The fun part is that in her own district, the taxpayers pay more for public education, and education overall is more expensive.

The point I'm trying to make is that taxation isn't a fix, equality is a fix. Government may or may not need to tax to ensure that equality, but if the government has money it can provide some small incentives to groups who don't believe in equality, like that school district that went out of its way to have a woman jailed.

Here's the story: http://gawker.com/5743399/mom-convicted-of-felony-jailed-for-fraudulently-sending-kids-to-safer-school

[hunter]

57. The wealthy get the most benifit from our society.

The poor get shat upon.

The wealthy should pay for the great riches they enjoy.

The poor shouldn't have to pay anything, and should in fact be subsidized for the abuses and violence they suffer by the actions of the wealthy.

The purpose of a progressive tax is to link us all together as a human community and to prevent the wealthy from getting wealthier as the poor get poorer.

[joshcryer]

66. The wealthy also create loopholes to keep poor people poor.

In the above example of the mother being jailed for falsifying records so her kids could get a better education (and possibly avoid things like street harassment, teenage pregnancy, etc), the reason she was jailed is that the school district in question, which has lower per-pupil costs, lower-state-tax-intake, charges an inordinate amount of money for "out of district" tuition. Something like $7000 a year on top of the money they get from the state and from the local property owners.

It's all designed to keep people out who cannot d-facto afford to pay to get "in."

(The reason that the school districts differ so much is probably because the "good" district has smaller class rooms per pupil. It's also why the bad district costs more, probably because it costs more to maintain bigger schools in the end.)

[JHB]

140. Wealth and power get sucked upward as sure as sh*t flows downhill...

...and for the same reasons: those higher up have more leverage to push around those farther down.

But somehow it's not "redistributing wealth" when it redistributes upward.

[Fire1]

61. NO! You cannot be a progressive and think in those terms.

Hell, you can't even be a LIBERAL and think in those terms.

[Starry Messenger]

68. Well, you've certainly missed the main point of belonging to humanity.

I don't know what the political name is for that.

[blindpig]

91. Capitalists?

Just a guess.

[Starry Messenger]

93. Pithy and accurate as always blindpig.

I should have had more coffee before reading this morning.

[eShirl]

72. Is the main point of being a conservative to look out for "#1" and to hell with everyone else?

Can a person be a conservative if they don't believe in the philosophies of Machiavelli and Scrooge?

[chillspike]

74. What if someone is able-bodied but just unlucky?

Let's break this down into a simpler form to illustrate this:

Suppose we are a tribe and a bunch of hunters from our tribe set out on to the plains to hunt for food. They are all skilled hunters but, just from sheer luck, some will come back with food and some won't.

So some hunters come back with food and some don't. Do the hunters who came back with food share it with the rest of the tribe or just keep it to themselves and their immediate family?

The answer to this question depends on if you regard yourself as part of a group or a totally separate and solitary entity.

So, do you collect resources on the behalf and for the survival benefit of your whole tribe or just yourself and immediate family? If it's just for yourself can you legitimately claim to belong to a tribe or group?

And if everyone is collecting resources for themselves, does the "tribe" even exist?

[deutsey]

75. Being a progressive is first and foremost a vision of what makes a society good

A vision of society that is fair and equitable, not tilted in favor of the wealthy and privileged.

That means the resources of the society are accessible to all citizens of the society: health care, education, good housing, jobs, public space, etc. It also means all citizens have equal rights and are all under the law as well as protected by the law.

Since the American Revolution, progressives like Thomas Paine have advocated and fought for a society in which those resources and rights are available to the poor, to racial minorities, to women...to everyone, in other words, and not just limited to white wealthy men.

George Lakoff says that "taxes", when seen in that progressive worldview, are investments in what makes our society beneficial to all its citizens.

As someone from the working poor, I've benefited personally from those investments, especially in education...public schools and financial aid that helped me be the first in my family to go to college. I'm "able-bodied" but I was also flat broke with a history of generational poverty.

I'm thankful for progressives who fought before me to make that opportunity open to me and that's why I'm a progressive now fighting a sometimes seemingly losing battle to keep those opportunities open to future generations.

[Bandit]

77. I am a Progressive/Liberal and I believe the ENTIRE purpose of Government

Is to Provide for the Health and Welfare of the Nation. It does that through taxation and ever since our income tax system was put into place that has been a progressive taxation system..The wealthy use more services and so should pay more. You go where the money is..Afterall the whole purpose of taxation is to provide for our country's needs. However taxation is a small part of what makes me progressive..I believe in the Golden Rule..What Republican does? I believe very much in the words of Jesus although I belong to no established religion. You take care of the least fortunate because it is the right thing to do, not because you will make money by doing so. Government is not a business and it does not need to make money. It needs to take care of it's citizens just as virtually every other Westernized Nation already does. The Government should provide Health care for every single citizen and do whatever it can to keep our people productive members of society..

[hakko936]

80. I don't post often, but read a lot.....

...and your comment "The wealthy use more services and so should pay more." intrigues me. I am assuming you are saying they use more government services. Please explain how they use more government services. I have never heard/read a comment saying the rich should be taxed more because they use more services.

I have always assumed just the opposite.

[Bandit]

83. OK

Many of the wealthy own a boat/yacht,more than one car and many, either own their own plane or simply travel more than those less fortunate. That means they use both the air ports and the harbors more than most folks, they drive more so use the highways more, the wealthier neighborhoods get far better police and fire protection than those that are not as exclusive. They purchase more so delivery drivers are used more which also uses the road system more. There are numerous examples of how the wealthy use more public facilities and services..

[hakko936]

90. OK...

Anything dealing with roads is federally funded via use taxes through fuel permits or direct fuel taxation. This would cover personal vehicles and any commercial items via delivery drivers. Even at the local level they are already paying more in the way of taxes for car registrations and associated fees. In many areas, your registration fee is based on the value of your vehicle. The value of your vehicle has nothing to do with the amount of use on the roads.

The fire and police analogy is bogus. The vast majority of fire, EMS, and police protection is funded by local property taxes. They already pay more there.

You pay high fees if you have private aircraft to use airports. If not direct landing fees, it is done via taxation through the FBO. If you fly commercial, you already pay airport use taxes per ticket.

I am not sure about harbors.

Now let's talk about the items the bit time rich do not use. Public schools, public libraries, public transportation which is often operated at a loss, SS, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, welfare, public housing assistance, food stamps, etc.

This is the problem I have in general with the people who are polarized on each side of the issue. They don't want to look at the overall problem. They only want to look at the side that paints their point of view the best. That just drives me nuts. I can see your point about what the rich do use, but you have to look at all of the things they do not use and balance it. I think it is safe to say that overall, the rich do not use the public services/assistance anywhere near the level of the average person.

I am not arguing that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes, because if you make more, you should certainly pay more. I just want the discussion to be rational. Saying they use more is not rational.

[immoderate]

96. Let's say your business employs 100 people...

All 101 of you benefit from driving to work. But you, as proprietor, make a profit from each of the 100 workers who come to work for you.

Airports and ports get federal subsidies as well as local. Freight, rail and air shipment of goods is also subsidized by the taxpayers, but they don't share the profits.

Also consider taxpayer cleanups of industrial dumps. Investors have already taken the profits. Left us with the clean-up bill.

You are naive if you think the CEOs that show up in Obama's office don't get special treatment. Also consider that mostly all social problems stem from income disparity.

--imm

[HughBeaumont]

117. There's a whole shit-ton of stuff you're overlooking . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

Anyone who runs anything from a large conglomerate to a small business uses nearly all of the services mentioned above. Large corporations are also some of the biggest recipients of public largesse. You think it's charity or magic debt fairies that bail out unbridled corporatism when it fails? This isn't goalpost-shifting, it's reality.

[StarsInHerHair]

136. the rich tend to live in hilly areas that catch fire alot too, THAT costs alot

more

[tblue37]

129. They also have virtually the exclusive services of our government, which passes

laws to benefit them and to protect them against competition from the rest of us.

[Johonny]

146. I find this odd

since it is the most common argument for a progressive tax system. You probably want to read more on progressive tax system outside the DU then. I think the follow posters have demonstrated pretty well how people with more means generally use more of our social commons.

[fishwax]

78. I don't see that the second question has any relation to the first

[treestar]

79. The able bodied who don't work presumably don't work because they can't find a job

A decent society would do something about that. Only right wingers are cruel enough to say "move" to where there is a job - one solution many would take but it might split up a family - or my favorite "create a job." Like anyone can do that in modern times, all on their own.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. The idea is for the haves to pay their fair share of all the costs.

But the haves use their money to make sure government does what THEY want, and then try to slip the bill to those who are being destroyed by those policies -- the have nots.

It's the idea that the haves need to pay their own bills. The have nots are done with it, and not only that, they are too ruined to do it anymore. Hence, the deficit.

The haves are the ones running up the credit card, to pay for what THEY want and what profits them (wars and corruption). As for the have nots and "entitlements"... If a big price rollback was put on medical costs, back to what they're really worth, there would be no problem with Medicare and Medicaid. And Social Security is pre-paid-for.

Next question?

[leftstreet]

84. Is the MAIN POINT of being a SERF to provide LABOR VALUE to the HAVES?

FFS

[stranger81]

86. I think the very way you've chosen to frame this question

illustrates firmly that you're not a progressive. But nobody's saying you have to be.

[Hannah Bell]

88. "Taxing the haves to pay for individual have nots" = "providing for able bodied

individuals for a persons entire life"?

The strawmen are thick on the ground.

[Gormy Cuss]

89. Which "able bodied individuals" are you prattling on about?

For that matter, by what logic does one go from describing a group as "have nots" in one sentence and "provided for able bodied individuals for a persons entire life" in the next?

Are you implying that have nots are lazy able bodied people?

[TheKentuckian]

92. No, it is to promote broad prosperity and self determination for all. To me.

What you are talking about is a means not an end. Taxation is resource management. Economies are how resources are distributed.

Neither is a religion. I'm not sure I process your post, it sounds like a non-teabagging Republican distortion.

[mkultra]

95. they wealthy deserve to pay a greater percentage

They have more at stake. By nature of the fact that they hold more money alone, they have a greater interest in supporting the very government that backs their wealth.

[krispos42]

98. The haves would have nothing if the have-nots cannot spend

And we have to prevent the rich from totally dominated our politics with their money.

[jobendorfer]

99. I would frame the problem in a very different way

When a society gets into the situation where the majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, it tends to become a) authoritarian ( the wealthy class suborns government to defend its interests ) and b) unstable ( people who are unemployed and hungry long enough start getting ... intense. ) When the mechanisms of capitalism fail to reasonably distribute income across the general population, it falls upon the government to do the job. Progressive taxation is the tool. This was, essentially, FDR's message to the oligarchs of his day: "start finding ways to get people back to work, or we'll tax the hell out of you and give your money to them ... your call." A message unfortunately completely lost on today's so-called Democratic politicians.

J.

[BzaDem]

101. If you believe that pure market allocation of resources (with the exception of general spending on

the things you mention) is the proper role of government, then how do you explain rising income inequality? How do you explain the fact that for the last 30 years, the top of the top have seen their income increase 6 times over, but the median wage has basically been stagnant in real terms?

You seem to be against the government taking some income from the rich and helping the poor specifically. But if you are against that, why do you support the exact initial allocation in the first place that gives the rich so much more than the poor? There are reasons of course (incentive to work, economic growth, etc) why there should be income inequality to a certain degree, but why do you want it to the extent we have it now?

The income inequality we have now is absolutely ridiculous. It was not always like this -- the median wage rose for decades before the 80s. Do you support the level of income inequality we have now? If not, do you support the government actually doing something about it?

[wishlist]

102. No but it's an easy excuse for right wingers to justify lower taxes on wealthy

Your question sounds like my multi-millionaire relatives who whine about not wanting to pay taxes because they resent their taxes going to help free loaders who don't deserve help when in fact historically, very little of our tax revenues have ever helped free loaders (unless you count business incentives and loan bailouts) but instead taxes are necessary to support education, infrastructure, defense spending, and social programs which are primarily serving disadvantaged and needy children, elderly and disabled and provide safety nets in cases of unusual circumstances like our current high unemployment.

[Capitalocracy]

105. Can you ask your multi-millionaire relatives to give me a job?

Now that the tax cuts have been extended, I've come to understand they must be hiring.

[Capitalocracy]

104. It's pretty hard to achieve 100% employment.

And right now, the underemployed are well into double digits. Should they all starve just to fulfill the trust fund babies' sense of entitlement?

And by the way, if we didn't have a massive army committing crimes in our name all around the world, we could charge next to nothing in taxes and be able to provide for everyone in need, no problem.

[TheKentuckian]

118. It is especially difficult when it is in capital's best interest to avoid it.

They LOVE the buyer's market and would avoid full employment if it was at all possible even if it was automatic.

[Capitalocracy]

131. Capital being in charge, of course...

hence the name. ;)

[RandomThoughts]

107. Yes, hence why those that are making more then modest income

off the work of other people that actually do the work should be taxed more when there is a tax shortfall, if that shortfall is because of corruption, then justice should have the resources to correct that. Do you think the aristocracy class would agree that they should work?

I agree that able bodied individuals should work.



On a personal note, my current strike stance is because of required correction, after which I assume I would resume working like I did for many years. Working is a fulfilling activity. And although more agreeable and more noble work, the grocery store and even software coding is not as useful as what I been doing for the past few years.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Yes. And no. All capitalist systems have unemployment, it is the systems job to provide for them.

[Bluebear]

110. You never fail to disappoint, I will give you that. nt

[pinboy3niner]

119. Is this Paul Ryan's sequel to his "Hammock" speech?

No, you can't be a progressive unless you sign our pledge (in blood) to rob the wealthy so we can then dole out the booty to worthless, able-bodied slackers who do nothing but lie around in hammocks sipping chardonnay. :eyes:

[Prometheus Bound]

121. I don't think taxation is the issue.

I live in a place with max 17% tax rate (no state or municipal or sales tax). Only about a third of the population pay any tax at all. Yet is is still the most unequal place on earth because the entire system is set up and controlled by the billionaires for the benefit of the billionaires.

[demmiblue]

126. Sheesh. Are you for real? n/t

[tblue37]

127. No--the main reason to be a progressive is to level the playing field a

bit, so that those with enormous amounts of moeny and power can't systematically rig the system to gain even more money and power, until they gobble everything up, while those who produce the wealth don't get to share in any of it.

The rich and powerful have so rigged our system and have so gutted our regulatory agencies that in most cases the normal working stiff hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of even surviving financially in thelong term, much less of ever gettign ahead.

Taxes are a minor part of it; limiting abuses of power (and further centralization of power) is the main point.

OTOH, those who become rich do so off the labor of others, and those who produce should share to a reasonable degree in the wealth they produce.

The point of taxes is to provide for common goods and services--education is a public good. So are roads and bridges. So is providing for the elderly to live decent lives rather than to fall into destitution when they can no longer work.

[Doremus]

130. Troll. nt

[JHB]

137. No, that's not the main point

The main point is to provide the revenue for the government and the infrastructure it provides.

It does so by reducing the burden at the lower and middle levels and increasing them at the higher end.
At the lower and mid levels, the extra money in their pockets will mainly go toward better supporting themselves and their families. At the higher end less goes to such basic support and sustaining a decent standard of living.

Another effect is in changing the economic decisions of those at the high end: how to get the most bang for their buck while paying the least they can in taxes. When you're up in the economic stratosphere and every extra buck is pure gravy, which is the better deal: to take cents on the dollar to stick more in your pocket, or get full value by paying someone to do work for you? Better pay "carrots" become more attractive management tools, not just the unemployment "stick".

Think of it as an "extra gravy tax".

Bumper sticker:
Progressive taxes help people trying to get ahead instead of people who already are.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

142. The main point of progressivism as it relates to taxation is that all should pay their fair share.

And while the "have nots" may or may not pay income tax, they do pay plenty in other forms of taxes.

And the "haves" will continue to have plenty even after paying their fair share.

We're all in society together. The majority of the enlisted individuals in the US military come from lower-middle income to lower income households. Very few come from upper income households. That's fine; I'm against forced military service and things such as the GI Bill are logically aimed at those with lower incomes.

Teachers, policeman, firemen, most other civil servants--all lower to middle class individuals.

So what I'm saying is if the lower and middle classes are doing their societial duty in participating in civil service that benefits us all, but there is little to attract those in upper income brackets to those professions, then the least those in the upper income brackets can do is to pay their proportional share towards society. And stop whining that their success is somehow being "punished" because they have to pay taxes.

I don't know if you actually intended it to be, but your question is loaded and seems to come right out of something the likes of Rush Limbaugh may have said.

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. It's more than that. The reason for creating "haves" is to care for the rest.

The entire market economy is a social construct. Society has created this system because looting is inefficient.

The purpose of the economy is to allocate resources in a way which maximizes society's happiness.

[lonestarnot]

144. A label is just a label that only some take personally. Hmmmf.

[CreekDog]

148. Actually, you are right wing if you don't believe in some form of income redistribution

because every industrialized democracy does it and the only ones that oppose it wholesale are right wing groups (though in the USA, many in the Republican Party oppose it wholesale). so, although the thinking is more mainstream in the USA overall by ours and others' standards it is right-wing to oppose it.

centrist would be supporting it mostly.

liberal would probably be asking to expand it.

centrist in other countries, however, would support expanding it to provide universal health care, which our peer nations do and their primary conservative parties support.

[demmiblue]

149. Hmmm...

:eyes: