They have more representation because they have more money. Being able to vote means nothing when somebody else can bribe your elected officials.
Logic and Taxes
- Thread starter BigDawg
- Start date
They have more representation because they have more money. Being able to vote means nothing when somebody else can bribe your elected officials.
Yes but what about when the 10th man, through totally legal loopholes and means, pays almost nothing at all, leaving the bulk of the bill on those men in the middle?
Or when the 10th man wants to buy a cheap and common barfood, pretzels, for $1. Pretzels are a requirement really. Who goes to a bar and doesn't get pretzels? How can you drink beer and not have pretzles? It's ridiculous! He has plenty enough money to provide pretzels for the entire group just on his 16% savings on the beer tab alone, but everyone is on their own for food. Unfortunately men 1-4 cannot afford pretzels, as they don't have the money whatsoever. The fifth man could buy them with his new break on the beer, but then he'd have nothing left. That's not very smart, so he also skips the pretzels. Now you have half the men without the basic requirement of pretzels!
Or when the 10th man wants to buy a cheap and common barfood, pretzels, for $1. Pretzels are a requirement really. Who goes to a bar and doesn't get pretzels? How can you drink beer and not have pretzles? It's ridiculous! He has plenty enough money to provide pretzels for the entire group just on his 16% savings on the beer tab alone, but everyone is on their own for food. Unfortunately men 1-4 cannot afford pretzels, as they don't have the money whatsoever. The fifth man could buy them with his new break on the beer, but then he'd have nothing left. That's not very smart, so he also skips the pretzels. Now you have half the men without the basic requirement of pretzels!
"And almost all working poor already live paycheck to paycheck. Me and both of my parents (who are both attorneys) are living check-to-check, barely able to afford groceries in between paychecks."
Maybe your parents should sell a BMW or the vacation home. I find it very hard to believe two attorneys are living paycheck to paycheck, seeing how much my family pays to our attorney each year.
This sounds like a rant from a person who was raised in an upper middle class family and is pissed because the world was not handed to him.
Maybe your parents should sell a BMW or the vacation home. I find it very hard to believe two attorneys are living paycheck to paycheck, seeing how much my family pays to our attorney each year.
This sounds like a rant from a person who was raised in an upper middle class family and is pissed because the world was not handed to him.
It is not one of the option in the poll but I think we should be taxed ONLY on what we buy, no other taxes, that IMO would be fair.
for the tax breaks of home ownership. Hehehe
Almost all of your numbers are misleading. You correctly point out that you are talking about federal income taxes, but the numbers ignore federal "payroll taxes," i.e., Social Security (FICA) and Medicare. FICA taxes hit lower income people much harder than higher income people because there is a fairly low cutoff on the income that is taxed. The numbers also ignore gasoline and other federal taxes that are included in the purchase prices of various goods and the prices of services from businesses that pay such taxes. Those taxes also hit lower income people harder because they spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on goods and services. The numbers also ignore state and local taxes, largely sales taxes, which also hit poor people harder as a percentage of total income. Finally, those of us "lucky" enough to be footing the bill for federal income taxes on our wages and salaries pay a much higher rate than people who get large incomes from capital gains and dividends.
In my opinion, the high income folks were paying closer to their fair share in the 1990's, when the economy was doing well, rich folks were doing well, and jobs really were being created. The idea that low taxes on rich folks will create jobs has been disproven throughout the period of the current, extended, "temporary" Bush tax cuts.
I'm a flat tax man myself, I believe everyone should pay the same percentage with possibly some exemption for the very lowest incomes (say less than $20,000 single $30,000 joint) and no deductions, credits etc. I also believe money should only be taxed once as opposed to multiple times.
This Sir, may be the most plainly written example of how our tax system works I have ever seen. It is pure genius, know if you could just get people to read it. Unfortunately most won't or will find an emotionally driven reason that its still not fair.
Jay
Perhaps thats how Government Officials in Australia are but I put a little more trust in ours.
Jay
Yup, thats how the system works. Everyone from Acorn to Chevron to SEIU to Smith & Wesson, pays lobbyists. Some lobbyists represent the poor, some represent the rich, some represent churches, some represent enviromentalists.
I think this is probably a more telling list. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php?cycle=2010&type=P
Top 10
Dem=6
Rep=3
IND=1
Second 11-20
Dem=7
Rep=3
Third 21-30
Dem=9
Rep=1
But again this stuff changes every election. When Republicans are in power then they will have more people in the Top 30 getting lobbied. If we ever get a solid viable Third Party, they will have people on the list. Thats how is works.
Jay
Last edited:
This isn't a partisan issue - the point was that the rich have more power because they have the resources to lobby. The poor might do it too, but they're damn sure not paying as much as the wealthy (probably a good five orders of magnitude or so less), and if I were an unscrupulous congressman taking money from lobbyists, I'd be trying to remain on good terms with the ones who were shovelling wads of cash into the back of my car, not the ones who pay me with food stamps.
I agree with you, but the disproportionate influence of the very wealthiest Americans goes beyond direct, registered lobbying. Political advertising and other activities are sponsored by the wealthiest Americans and by organizations that pool their members' resources. The Tea Party/Parties have been sponsored and controlled by billionaires and managed by political insiders since shortly after they were formed. The Supreme Court recently removed most controls over campaign financing, and the other controls are easily skirted. And one of the largest media companies is more or less a mouthpiece for one wing of one party, controlled by a billionaire and managed by an insider. We all get one vote, but that's where the equality ends.
More likely, you'd take the money from lobbyists then keep lying to the people on food stamps to vote for you.
That works both ways. Both parties have the same game going, not just the GOP.
I think those numbers are not as meaningful as they seem. Lobbyists for all causes would like to influence both parties and will give money to the most influential representatives. Democrats control the Senate (by one vote) and have a large minority in the house. Therefore, all lobbyists would like to get their attention. It may even be that a purchased Democratic vote is more valuable to the donors than a purchased Republican vote because the Republicans will support most of the donors on ideological grounds, regardless of contributions, while the Democrat might be tempted to vote against the potential donor.
I'm more interested in where the money comes from:http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php
Labor ranks 10th. A wide variety of issue-based organizations rank among the leaders, but industry and very wealthy individuals pay the lion's share to the politicians. They are not in the habit of spending money unwisely.
How about lobbying groups like labor unions, AARP, Bar Associations, Trial Attorneys, so called public interest groups, etc. Why restrict only the corporate voice and not these?
President Obama goes to Hollywood and raises millions and there is not a peep. A corporation makes a political donation and all of a sudden the response is different.
Not to mention tax payer funded money launderers like Solyndra. No telling how many millions are going back into campaign coffers from that scam, and no telling how many just like it are out there yet undiscovered. There wasn't much complaint from the left when General Motors was found to be donating funds to one party's candidates before paying for their tax payer funded bailout, either.
No Sir, wasn't trying to make it partisan. Trying to point out that all the parties are involved. But every group wants a say and that means they put money with a lobbying group either individually or collectively to get their message heard. I just think of it as campaigning in reverse.
Yes Sir, you are correct. But again it happens on both sides. MSNBC is the counter to Fox, Coffee Party vs Tea Party, Koch Bros vs Soros. Thats why they, collectively, are after independents in every election.
If you get bored go through the Forbes 400 look at some of the donations, it will suprise you how cheap the rich are when it comes to politics.
Jay
Even better (keep in mind we're talking about the hypothetical unscrupulous congressman version of me, not the real me).
Not to mention that if you can't change the law, as long as you're wealthy enough, you can often break it anyway (or coast in a grey area), and rely on your team of Harvard lawyers to keep you out of trouble.
Indeed. Just to reiterate - my point wasn't about left or right wing causes, what I was saying was that for any given cause, if the position of the group with the most money conflicts with the position of the majority, the ones with the money are going to have their position represented with much more weight.
Similar threads
