Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

French people taxed at OVER 100%?

imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:57:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com...

This isnt like one or two people in France either, its thousands of people, and the number of those taxed at 75% or 85% are even higher.

Scary sh*t 0_0
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:06:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That is the Liberal dream. 100% tax on the rich.

As a Frenchman, I do not support the socialist French government, it is a disgrace.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 2:57:51 PM, imabench wrote:
http://finance.yahoo.com...

This isnt like one or two people in France either, its thousands of people, and the number of those taxed at 75% or 85% are even higher.

Scary sh*t 0_0

It's not as bad as it seems.
There was a one-time tax that was applied to 2011 incomes in 2012 for the wealthy. (It appears to be a wealth tax, not an income tax from what I scanned)

To put it in perspective:
Let's say you made $1 million last year in income because you won the lottery. Now, you quit your job and started a business that is breaking even. In fact, this year, your income was only $1,000.

Now, let's say there was a credit that you needed to pay back from a while ago (like the First Time Homebuyer's credit that was really a loan for those who got it in 2008). So, you have to pay $500 in taxes in your payback. On the surface, it appears the IRS is taxing you 50% ($500/$1,000), but this is misleading as the tax was agreed to in previous years and independant of the income this year.

Those in France that are subject to this 100% tax are hardly poor, and the tax rate in France is quite high to begin with (like everyone pays 30%, where in the US, about 20% actually get money).

As per my usual, a convuluted as fvck post, but I hope this makes sense.
My work here is, finally, done.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:06:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That is the Liberal dream. 100% tax on the rich.

As a Frenchman, I do not support the socialist French government, it is a disgrace.

Wait, are you French or Latino?
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 3:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For most of the wealthy, a 100% tax on income would result in a tax on far less than 5% of their net worth.

The wealthy know that because they are, well, wealthy, they do have to contribute more to the government. They know this is in their best interest because an insolvent government threatens their wealth in a far more dangerous fashion than a mere denial of income. The wealthy don't rely upon their income to maintain their living standards to nearly the extent that anyone else does.

This logic only works when a government is in trouble. Otherwise, I believe the wealthy to be the engines of growth in most societies. They should nevertheless expect to shoulder a larger societal burden than the poor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:11:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:34:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
For most of the wealthy, a 100% tax on income would result in a tax on far less than 5% of their net worth.

The wealthy know that because they are, well, wealthy, they do have to contribute more to the government. They know this is in their best interest because an insolvent government threatens their wealth in a far more dangerous fashion than a mere denial of income. The wealthy don't rely upon their income to maintain their living standards to nearly the extent that anyone else does.

This logic only works when a government is in trouble. Otherwise, I believe the wealthy to be the engines of growth in most societies. They should nevertheless expect to shoulder a larger societal burden than the poor.

So... the wealthy should contribute more to an organization because they benefit more than others from that organization? lol u funny
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:28:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:06:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That is the Liberal dream. 100% tax on the rich.

Geo go be retarded somewhere else.

As a Frenchman, I do not support the socialist French government, it is a disgrace.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:46:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:11:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:34:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
For most of the wealthy, a 100% tax on income would result in a tax on far less than 5% of their net worth.

The wealthy know that because they are, well, wealthy, they do have to contribute more to the government. They know this is in their best interest because an insolvent government threatens their wealth in a far more dangerous fashion than a mere denial of income. The wealthy don't rely upon their income to maintain their living standards to nearly the extent that anyone else does.

This logic only works when a government is in trouble. Otherwise, I believe the wealthy to be the engines of growth in most societies. They should nevertheless expect to shoulder a larger societal burden than the poor.

So... the wealthy should contribute more to an organization because they benefit more than others from that organization? lol u funny

Proportionality, my friend. And, stop looking in the mirror...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 3:31:40 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 5/20/2013 3:06:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That is the Liberal dream. 100% tax on the rich.

As a Frenchman, I do not support the socialist French government, it is a disgrace.

Wait, are you French or Latino?

Both. French dad, Mexican mother.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:11:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.

Do you seriously believe that someone paying, literally, 100% of their income is "fair"? You seem to confuse government handouts with legitimate earnings, or your post indicates such. Not taxing the wealthy at ridiculously high rates is not "welfare", it's allowing them to keep what they've earned; handing money to people because they can't afford a service is welfare
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:19:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:11:08 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.


Do you seriously believe that someone paying, literally, 100% of their income is "fair"? You seem to confuse government handouts with legitimate earnings, or your post indicates such. Not taxing the wealthy at ridiculously high rates is not "welfare", it's allowing them to keep what they've earned; handing money to people because they can't afford a service is welfare

I cringe every time you use the word "earned". There is no such thing as earning. You get whatever money your industry accrues - and that's dependent on its public relevance - which is why the CEOs in the entertainment industry along with large food and clothing corporations make so much money.

There's no "earning" here. Earning is an opinionated word.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:21:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:19:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:11:08 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.


Do you seriously believe that someone paying, literally, 100% of their income is "fair"? You seem to confuse government handouts with legitimate earnings, or your post indicates such. Not taxing the wealthy at ridiculously high rates is not "welfare", it's allowing them to keep what they've earned; handing money to people because they can't afford a service is welfare

I cringe every time you use the word "earned". There is no such thing as earning. You get whatever money your industry accrues - and that's dependent on its public relevance - which is why the CEOs in the entertainment industry along with large food and clothing corporations make so much money.

There's no "earning" here. Earning is an opinionated word.

Ok so instead of "earned" want to sub in "contractually derived income"? It makes no difference to the substance of the argument that these people got this income through some kind of labor, so not taking it =/= welfare
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:26:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What's even scarier is that the justification behind these extraordinarily high tax brackets is not concern for the welfare of the poor, but contempt for the rich. The French government has made this explicit when they acknowledge these tax hikes will not make the slightest dent in their deficit.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:30:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How many people here actually understand what income tax means? 100% does not mean they are going to take everything you have. Or even everything you made that year. It means 100% of whatever you made above your income bracket will be taxed.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:30:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How many people here actually understand what income tax means? 100% does not mean they are going to take everything you have. Or even everything you made that year. It means 100% of whatever you made above your income bracket will be taxed.

I understand that (although I dont know if it applies in this case--didnt read the article) but Wrichirw seemed to be arguing taxing 100% of income was ok
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:30:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How many people here actually understand what income tax means? 100% does not mean they are going to take everything you have. Or even everything you made that year. It means 100% of whatever you made above your income bracket will be taxed.

"It means 100% of whatever you made above your income bracket will be taxed."

That's still scary.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:39:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.

So, because they can pay, they should pay. Seems like a classic Is/Ought fallacy.

Anyway, I don't care whether somebody can afford it. If we were to take your logic to its extreme (which should always be done to see if the logic is reasonable), it would most surely lead to, what society believes to be, an unfavourable outcome (families of retards paying tens of thousands dollars more for schooling).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:39:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.

So, because they can pay, they should pay. Seems like a classic Is/Ought fallacy.

Anyway, I don't care whether somebody can afford it. If we were to take your logic to its extreme (which should always be done to see if the logic is reasonable), it would most surely lead to, what society believes to be, an unfavourable outcome (families of retards paying tens of thousands dollars more for schooling).

Or people being forced to donate organs.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:33:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would be in favor of setting a high 100% bracket. Except that rather than going to the government, they are simply required to choose a charity to give it to.

It would certainly be a different kind of society.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:45:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:44:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It would certainly be a different kind of society."

You at least got that right.

That was clever and not predictable at all.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:48:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:45:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:44:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"It would certainly be a different kind of society."

You at least got that right.

That was clever and not predictable at all.

Couldn't help myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:53:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not sure how many people would make an effort to earn more than they would be legally allowed to keep, but those people are the LAST ones that need this sort of program.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:19:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:11:08 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.


Do you seriously believe that someone paying, literally, 100% of their income is "fair"? You seem to confuse government handouts with legitimate earnings, or your post indicates such. Not taxing the wealthy at ridiculously high rates is not "welfare", it's allowing them to keep what they've earned; handing money to people because they can't afford a service is welfare

I cringe every time you use the word "earned". There is no such thing as earning. You get whatever money your industry accrues - and that's dependent on its public relevance - which is why the CEOs in the entertainment industry along with large food and clothing corporations make so much money.

There's no "earning" here. Earning is an opinionated word.

We are assuming that investing in a company by taking a risk with your own money when you don't have much is earning. Because it is.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:16:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:39:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 5:00:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:52:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:48:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:13:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I assume, that by that logic, that the families of retarded kids should be forced to pay more for general schooling than the families of geniuses because their benefit from the schooling is significantly larger than that of a genius?

If a genius doesn't need to go to school, why is the genius paying for schooling?

Paying for school is hardly a choice in a public school system. Don't dodge the question.

lol, I'm not dodging the question. Maybe the genius should be allowed to opt out and not pay for schooling.

However, that's not my point. Let's assume that the genius gets 100 units of utility from school. On the other hand, the retard gets 1000 units of utility from schooling. Following your logic, the family of the retard should pay more, right?

Yes.

The conflict comes in that families of retarded children typically cannot afford the much higher costs associated with such schooling. The state intervenes by providing welfare for such families.

So, compared to rich families, do rich families deserve welfare? Or, should they pay their proportionally fair share? Rich families do not have this excuse to fall upon.

So, because they can pay, they should pay. Seems like a classic Is/Ought fallacy.

Anyway, I don't care whether somebody can afford it. If we were to take your logic to its extreme (which should always be done to see if the logic is reasonable), it would most surely lead to, what society believes to be, an unfavourable outcome (families of retards paying tens of thousands dollars more for schooling).

The problem here is because you don't care whether or not someone can afford it. Yes it may cost tens of thousands of dollars, which is why the government has a welfare program to help families with disabled children alleviate these costs.

Rich people have zero justification for this kind of welfare. What is left is that both rich families and disabled families should pay more taxes, except rich families do not deserve any compensation for welfare reasons. Take this to its logical extreme, and you will get rich people paying a lot of taxes, and families with disabled children being able to afford to send their children to school, even though without welfare it may have been otherwise exorbitantly expensive for these families to do so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?