It just depends on how selfish you are, whether you wish to share your earnings with the 40 year-old man who sweeps the hallway with the same amount of effort that you tap on your keyboard or drag with your mouse. Humanity is neither mature nor generous enough to reduce the wealth gap without government pointing them in the right direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem I have with this is sharing my earnings with someone who doesn't put in as much effort in whatever they do, because under the "liberal" plan, everybody will have the same regardless of what effort is made.
What a wonderful way to motivate people.
Why should someone who does not make the same effort, or take the same risks as someone else, be entitled to the same rewards.
The problem I have with this is sharing my earnings with someone who doesn't put in as much effort in whatever they do, because under the "liberal" plan, everybody will have the same regardless of what effort is made. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just not true. Equal access to education? Sure, everybody should have the same access to public schooling. But no "liberal" plan calls for spreading wealth evenly across all people. That's just the old "Straw Man" argument coming back to haunt the forums.
No one, not the liberals, not the conservatives, not even you, believes that the liberals in the country want to share everything equally.
Part of the idea is that what you recieve comes to you through the work of others.
Beside that, work does not necessarily have a positive relatioship to reward. You apparently have time to surf the web, and you also own a computer. What about all those people that work so hard they never have time to go on the internet, yet don't have enough money to buy a computer?
It is not true that all people with "experience under their belt" grow toward anti-taxation, anti-equal opportunity, anti-sharing policy. It just depends on how selfish you are, whether you wish to share your earnings with the 40 year-old man who sweeps the hallway with the same amount of effort that you tap on your keyboard or drag with your mouse. Humanity is neither mature nor generous enough to reduce the wealth gap without government pointing them in the right direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice leaps in logic there Tonton. So if you desire your taxation rate to be under say, 30-40% of your entire income then you are a) selfish b)anti-equal opportunity.
In never ceases to amaze me that the crowd who believes that self-esteem is so fragile does all the labeling and name calling.
Would you care to explain how supporting tax cuts equates with deny opportunities to others? Is the government the sole provider of opportunity?
Likewise you speak of this nice fictional character that sweeps the halls and I would ask you where do you draw the line?
Obviously there has to be some taxation and we all benefit from the common items the government provides for us. Things like defense, education, and infrastructure help all of us and most people seldom argue against them.
It is when that man sweeping the hall complains that although he didn't have to be taxed to build the road. (His income would likely be to low in a progressive tax structure) He also doesn't have a vehicle to drive on it. He declares you should provide him with one. Likewise you should provide him with insurance and fuel as well since he doesn't have money for those either.
What you have done then is moved from taxation for common purpose to taxation for pure wealth redistribution. This is what happens often in governmental programs. Very few people would object to the idea of help when you are down. However redistributing income to insure an equal result, not equal ability or opportunity, is not the role of the government.
<strong>Part of the idea is that what you recieve comes to you through the work of others.
Beside that, work does not necessarily have a positive relatioship to reward. You apparently have time to surf the web, and you also own a computer. What about all those people that work so hard they never have time to go on the internet, yet don't have enough money to buy a computer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very idealistic concept.
Yes, I have time to surf the web, beacuase I'm on vacation, which I EARNED. And I'm using the computer, which was bought with money that I EARNED.
If people don't have time to surf the internet, they don't need a computer. If you're so concerned, why don't you give them yours?
Trumptman, my sentiments exactly. Only you were much more eloquent.
[quote]The CEO has the responsibility to contribute a higher percentage of her salary toward running the country, which includes social programs.<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
"... as a public school teacher and college professor." </strong><hr></blockquote>
That explains a lot.
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
<strong>
It just depends on how selfish you are, whether you wish to share your earnings with the 40 year-old man who sweeps the hallway with the same amount of effort that you tap on your keyboard or drag with your mouse. Humanity is neither mature nor generous enough to reduce the wealth gap without government pointing them in the right direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem I have with this is sharing my earnings with someone who doesn't put in as much effort in whatever they do, because under the "liberal" plan, everybody will have the same regardless of what effort is made.
What a wonderful way to motivate people.
Why should someone who does not make the same effort, or take the same risks as someone else, be entitled to the same rewards.
This is not a concept that I understand.
Please enlighten me.
[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
<strong>
The problem I have with this is sharing my earnings with someone who doesn't put in as much effort in whatever they do, because under the "liberal" plan, everybody will have the same regardless of what effort is made. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just not true. Equal access to education? Sure, everybody should have the same access to public schooling. But no "liberal" plan calls for spreading wealth evenly across all people. That's just the old "Straw Man" argument coming back to haunt the forums.
No one, not the liberals, not the conservatives, not even you, believes that the liberals in the country want to share everything equally.
Beside that, work does not necessarily have a positive relatioship to reward. You apparently have time to surf the web, and you also own a computer. What about all those people that work so hard they never have time to go on the internet, yet don't have enough money to buy a computer?
<strong>
It is not true that all people with "experience under their belt" grow toward anti-taxation, anti-equal opportunity, anti-sharing policy. It just depends on how selfish you are, whether you wish to share your earnings with the 40 year-old man who sweeps the hallway with the same amount of effort that you tap on your keyboard or drag with your mouse. Humanity is neither mature nor generous enough to reduce the wealth gap without government pointing them in the right direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice leaps in logic there Tonton. So if you desire your taxation rate to be under say, 30-40% of your entire income then you are a) selfish b)anti-equal opportunity.
In never ceases to amaze me that the crowd who believes that self-esteem is so fragile does all the labeling and name calling.
Would you care to explain how supporting tax cuts equates with deny opportunities to others? Is the government the sole provider of opportunity?
Likewise you speak of this nice fictional character that sweeps the halls and I would ask you where do you draw the line?
Obviously there has to be some taxation and we all benefit from the common items the government provides for us. Things like defense, education, and infrastructure help all of us and most people seldom argue against them.
It is when that man sweeping the hall complains that although he didn't have to be taxed to build the road. (His income would likely be to low in a progressive tax structure) He also doesn't have a vehicle to drive on it. He declares you should provide him with one. Likewise you should provide him with insurance and fuel as well since he doesn't have money for those either.
What you have done then is moved from taxation for common purpose to taxation for pure wealth redistribution. This is what happens often in governmental programs. Very few people would object to the idea of help when you are down. However redistributing income to insure an equal result, not equal ability or opportunity, is not the role of the government.
Nick
<strong>Part of the idea is that what you recieve comes to you through the work of others.
Beside that, work does not necessarily have a positive relatioship to reward. You apparently have time to surf the web, and you also own a computer. What about all those people that work so hard they never have time to go on the internet, yet don't have enough money to buy a computer?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A very idealistic concept.
Yes, I have time to surf the web, beacuase I'm on vacation, which I EARNED. And I'm using the computer, which was bought with money that I EARNED.
If people don't have time to surf the internet, they don't need a computer. If you're so concerned, why don't you give them yours?
Trumptman, my sentiments exactly. Only you were much more eloquent.
[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
why?