OT - Current Affairs/COVID/Vaccines, etc

[lilfishi22]

However, in something such as robberies, break ins, etc where a criminal is attempting to steal money, property, etc, at least I would be much more confident in my own home if I had a gun and there was a break in as opposed to some kitchen knife or baseball bat. And in robberies in which the criminal has a gun and he wants money or so forth, what if a bystander happened to have a concealed gun and obviously the criminal can't see it so they think nothing of it and that bystander takes action and threatens to shoot the criminal if he doesn't just walk away and meanwhile another bystander may be calling 911 and nobody got hurt and no robbery occurred all because a responsible gun owner had a concealed hand gun that he used to threaten a criminal.

You may have heard of cases where robberies/break-ins were thwarted because the household/establishment had a gun but I would contend that these cases are more often than not sensationalised by social media/corporate media because it's a great story. But in the reality, these types of cases are much fewer and far in between than you probably think. The scenario happens more often in thought experiments than in real life I would imagine.

I believe criminals are much more afraid of citizens with guns than cops because cops will go very far until they will finally pull the trigger where as if a citizen even feels their life being threatened, they'll pull that trigger in the blink of an eye

I personally would be as afraid of bystanders, who I have no idea what their level of shooting training is, thinking he/she is Rambo and starts a crossfire with innocent civilians in between. That is absolutely the worst case scenario and the more likely scenario because the chances are, most people carrying do not have the skills or even bother with the proper training to know what to do in those situations outside of what they've seen in movies. I think you are vastly overrating the ability of the major percentage of gun owners and their reaction in many situations.

And when it comes down to it, if you look at crimes involving guns, criminals/robbers generally aren't there to hurt anyone, they are there to get in and get out. The hurting is when people think they are tough **** and takes out his/her weapon thinking they can take control of the situation but in most cases, they are either out-gunned and out manned. I don't carry a gun but I don't feel anymore vulnerable because would-be criminals probably doesn't have one either. And if I were to be mugged, I would just hand over my $500 phone, the maybe $50 cash I have in my wallet and some credit cards which I can claim later on was stolen. I was always taught that no material thing is worth giving up my life over and in a case of a mugging or robbery, I'm not going to give up my life over $600 worth of stuff.

[Frank Lee]

The 'pro gun' argument about gun carrying citizens saving the day and preventing crimes are few and far between. Recently in Chas SC, a conceal and carry man shot dead a would be robber at a waffle house . Yay. But do you really want this to happen ?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902

notice the missed shots in the photo? now read what really happened....

http://www.versacarry.com/gun-news/south-carolina-concealed-carrier-shoots-armed-robber-at-waffle-house/

No shots were fired until the robber was engaged. Everybody wants to be a cowboy. How tragic would this have been had innocents been killed in the crossfire between ,yes, a bad guy, and then some yahoo vigilante.

.........

Personally, I can't even picture a world where there wasnt gun control, and I guess it's probably the opposite for you guys. I'd find it so incredibly unnerving to think any given person on the street could realistically have a gun. How can you possibly trust anyone?

Or in other words .... How can you possibly trust everyone?

Slippery slope we are on.

[bigfoot]

Blue Lives Matter is a joke. The media coverage of the Dallas shootings has been unwatchable

Obviously the most ridiculous comment imaginable. Akin to saying #BlackLivesMatter is a joke. The fact is people's lives matter but there are a some bad people, black, white and brown who don't deserve our sympathy or empathy.

White people need to imagine what is like to be racially profiled ... to be fearful when they are stopped by police. Because it does happen. We have to work together to fix the problem. But that means blacks need to work with the police in their communities. Police forces need to be more balanced based on the racial makeup of the community. Body cameras need to be worn and always turned on. And a serious discussion about black-on-black crime/murder needs to happen.

But back to the point of Blue lives not mattering. Imagine if your father, mother, brother, sister, friend, uncle, nephew, or other person was a police officer. Irregardless of their color they all wear blue and the vast majority are out there to protect the people in their communities. You should take some time to visit a police station and sign up for some ride alongs to see what really happens during a police officers day.

I've been stopped by police several times. I have always doing something wrong (speeding, not getting over for an emergency vehicle) or something is wrong with vehicle (headlight or brake light). These are my fault not the police. People need to take responsibility for what they do wrong. If they happen to be a criminal and have a gun and threaten the police and get shot by the police, I don't care if they are white, black, or orange, but too damn bad for them.

[batsmasher]

LOL Victoria Police here in Aus just banned air compressed t-shirt shooting guns because they are classified as a class-E weapon. They're taking our freeeeeeedom.

[bwgood77]

I don't know if there is any data backing my opinion but my feeling is that in majority of violent cases, it's generally criminals against rival criminals. That's the case in Australia anyway. Gun laws are super strict here so the only one with guns are usually those have procured it illegally (criminals) but in the vast majority of cases where guns are used, it's almost completely isolated to gang violence. The gang issues aren't nearly on the same level as over in the US but it makes sense that the only times guns are used it's between criminals. And even when it comes to criminals, there are still very few gun crimes because guns are hard to obtain even for them.

Yes, criminals who had guns would be for the most part, gang related or drug smugglers, not the type that were normal people who snapped and went on a civilian killing spree because of mental problems.

However, in something such as robberies, break ins, etc where a criminal is attempting to steal money, property, etc, at least I would be much more confident in my own home if I had a gun and there was a break in as opposed to some kitchen knife or baseball bat. And in robberies in which the criminal has a gun and he wants money or so forth, what if a bystander happened to have a concealed gun and obviously the criminal can't see it so they think nothing of it and that bystander takes action and threatens to shoot the criminal if he doesn't just walk away and meanwhile another bystander may be calling 911 and nobody got hurt and no robbery occurred all because a responsible gun owner had a concealed hand gun that he used to threaten a criminal. I believe criminals are much more afraid of citizens with guns than cops because cops will go very far until they will finally pull the trigger where as if a citizen even feels their life being threatened, they'll pull that trigger in the blink of an eye.

It's extremely rare, and I don't even actually remember it happening, that someone robbing someone's home shot or killed someone. Home robberies, unless you are a millionare with a safe, are not going to be worth it to the criminals who do such things. They target homes where no one is there, and if there is, they get out asap.

At some sort of convenience store or something, I think it's worth letting the guy take the cash register money (likely not much) then get in a shoot out with a stranger. And I seriously doubt any stranger is going to put his life in danger to save 7/11 some money. Not worth it to me for these types of things to allow people to have them that can massacre cops, kids, students, etc.

[SunsBlood23]

The 'pro gun' argument about gun carrying citizens saving the day and preventing crimes are few and far between. Recently in Chas SC, a conceal and carry man shot dead a would be robber at a waffle house . Yay. But do you really want this to happen ?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902

notice the missed shots in the photo? now read what really happened....

http://www.versacarry.com/gun-news/south-carolina-concealed-carrier-shoots-armed-robber-at-waffle-house/

No shots were fired until the robber was engaged. Everybody wants to be a cowboy. How tragic would this have been had innocents been killed in the crossfire between ,yes, a bad guy, and then some yahoo vigilante.

.........

Personally, I can't even picture a world where there wasnt gun control, and I guess it's probably the opposite for you guys. I'd find it so incredibly unnerving to think any given person on the street could realistically have a gun. How can you possibly trust anyone?

Or in other words .... How can you possibly trust everyone?

Slippery slope we are on.

I agree that is can be a dangerous path however, I just can't support the ban of guns. It's a fundamental right but I do believe there need to be serious restrictions. If you want to own a gun you must pass background tests, have a license showing you know how to use the damn thing, etc. This way only law-abiding, responsible citizens own guns. I DO NOT believe in "everyone" being able to own a gun. I just want to get that straight. Also, I think this somewhat pertains to those living out in the country where animals can actually be a problem and in case of an emergency, a gun is the only option. I live in AZ although I don't live anywhere where mountain lions would be but if I did, those things can kill you or a small child more realistically if they are hungry enough and a man himself is no match for one of those. Now I know this is a small percentage of the people but we can't ignore them and IMO if I lived in the city where crime is more common, I would feel much more comfortable at night knowing there is a gun hidden where I know it is and is at my disposal in case of a break in. So I feel there are more people that could benefit from having a gun that don't even realize it.

[bigfoot]

The 'pro gun' argument about gun carrying citizens saving the day and preventing crimes are few and far between. Recently in Chas SC, a conceal and carry man shot dead a would be robber at a waffle house . Yay. But do you really want this to happen ?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902

notice the missed shots in the photo? now read what really happened....

http://www.versacarry.com/gun-news/south-carolina-concealed-carrier-shoots-armed-robber-at-waffle-house/

No shots were fired until the robber was engaged. Everybody wants to be a cowboy. How tragic would this have been had innocents been killed in the crossfire between ,yes, a bad guy, and then some yahoo vigilante.

.........

Personally, I can't even picture a world where there wasnt gun control, and I guess it's probably the opposite for you guys. I'd find it so incredibly unnerving to think any given person on the street could realistically have a gun. How can you possibly trust anyone?

Or in other words .... How can you possibly trust everyone?

Slippery slope we are on.

I agree that is can be a dangerous path however, I just can't support the ban of guns. It's a fundamental right but I do believe there need to be serious restrictions. If you want to own a gun you must pass background tests, have a license showing you know how to use the damn thing, etc. This way only law-abiding, responsible citizens own guns. I DO NOT believe in "everyone" being able to own a gun. I just want to get that straight.

Yep, Yep, Yep ...I think this is how the majority of US citizens feel. Gun ownership with licensing, background checks, and safety courses. Hell we need to do that to drive a car so why not to own a gun. Our problem right now is that political campaigns are funded by gun manufacturers and the NRA. They will not kill the proverbial cash cow.

[Frank Lee]

Had breakfast in a cracker-barrel yesterday. Two separate tables were openly armed. AZ. All I could think of, was , I hope they get along.

[Fo-Real]

Should start a pole.... Whow here is armed and with what. And why, what makes you want what you have.

[lilfishi22]

I agree that is can be a dangerous path however, I just can't support the ban of guns. It's a fundamental right but I do believe there need to be serious restrictions. If you want to own a gun you must pass background tests, have a license showing you know how to use the damn thing, etc. This way only law-abiding, responsible citizens own guns. I DO NOT believe in "everyone" being able to own a gun. I just want to get that straight.

I like the ban on guns in Australia but we never had the same fascination and "right to bear arms" explicitly written anywhere so for most Australians, the gun ban more or less didn't affect them. That said, I still don't believe it should be a fundamental right, it's a privilege. A privilege that you can and should lose if you don't meet certain standard for ownership. You're on the right path with strict background tests, licensing and only law-abiding/responsible citizens should own a gun. As part of the requirements for licensing should also be psychological testing and a required minimal level of training.

Also, I think this somewhat pertains to those living out in the country where animals can actually be a problem and in case of an emergency, a gun is the only option. I live in AZ although I don't live anywhere where mountain lions would be but if I did, those things can kill you or a small child more realistically if they are hungry enough and a man himself is no match for one of those. Now I know this is a small percentage of the people but we can't ignore them and IMO if I lived in the city where crime is more common, I would feel much more comfortable at night knowing there is a gun hidden where I know it is and is at my disposal in case of a break in.

I think those who live outside the city, where agricultural pests and natural predatory dangers exists, would already have a gun. It's really in the cities, where there's a high population density, where the above measures would have the most effect. And I should point out that one shouldn't mistake confidence with security. Owning a gun doesn't mean you're more secure, it just means you're more confident. Owning a gun is different to being able to use it in an appropriate, effective and safe way in the very few and very rare occasions when it may be an option.

So I feel there are more people that could benefit from having a gun that don't even realize it.

I wouldn't advocate more guns on the street. Those that don't realise they need a gun, probably never saw the need for one. And in the majority of cases, those that do own a gun, likely have never needed it.

[lilfishi22]

Another point that I should mention, those who argue about owning a gun for protection and trying to make a case of, if someone had a gun in these mass shooting cases then it wouldn't have happened, you're essentially trying to solve a problem by adding more fuel (guns) to the fire (the problem). It's the ease in which almost anyone can obtain a gun, that makes it harder to solve the problem. If your solution is to create an untrained and unorganised "vigilante" population that is separate to an already established police force by arming citizens against robberies, mass shootings, gang violence etc, then you're putting more guns into society, increasing the already high levels of paranoia and almost giving people the right to say, using your gun is ALWAYS an option in any situation they feel subjectively threatened or have no business intervening in.

Not to make fun of serious issues but this satirical Onion article which some of you may have already come across, echos the solution many people choose to solve the gun problem with.

http://www.theonion.com/article/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac-30860

SAN DIEGO—Following the events of last week, in which a crazed western lowland gorilla ruthlessly murdered 21 people in a local shopping plaza after escaping from the San Diego Zoo, sources across the country confirmed Thursday that national gorilla sales have since skyrocketed.

“After seeing yet another deranged gorilla just burst into a public place and start killing people, I decided I need to make sure something like that never happens to me,” said 34-year-old Atlanta resident Nick Keller, shortly after purchasing a 350-pound mountain gorilla from his local gorilla store. “It just gives me peace of mind knowing that if I’m ever in that situation, I won’t have to just watch helplessly as my torso is ripped in half and my face is chewed off. I’ll be able to use my gorilla to defend myself.”

“Law enforcement and animal control can only get there so quickly,” Keller added. “And you never know when you’ll need to use a gorilla to save your life.”

Reports confirmed that gorilla sales have historically risen sharply in the immediate aftermath of a major gorilla attack, most notably after the 2010 tragedy in the small town of Logan, NM, where 14 people, including two 5-year-old children and a 92-year-old woman, were viciously beaten to death by a 12-year-old gorilla who spontaneously attacked patrons of a crowded grocery store.

The latest attack marked the fifth of its kind in the United States within the last six months and has reignited the explosive national debate over gorilla control, with thousands of outraged Americans reportedly demanding that their government representatives act immediately in order to prevent further bloodshed.

“We’ve had to deal with too many gorilla-related tragedies, and we’ve had to bury too many innocent, feces-covered victims,” said Nicole Simmons, president of the Mothers Against Gorillas coalition, who herself lost her 16-year-old son in the infamous Baker High School gorilla rampage of 1997. “It’s time to put an end to this. We need to get gorillas off the streets once and for all. Enough is enough.”

“The answer to this systemic problem is not more gorillas,” Simmons continued, her eyes welling with tears. “The answer is fewer gorillas.”

As evidence, Simmons pointed to a 2011 University of Maryland study, which found that 98 percent of Americans who own a gorilla have never used them for defense against a home invasion. Simmons also cited widely reported studies confirming that people who keep gorillas in the home are 12 times more likely to have their arms torn off, and children in those households are 19 times more likely to be picked up by the legs and bashed repeatedly into the ground.

Furthermore, many gorilla control advocates have reportedly called for statewide limits to the number of gorillas one can purchase and a federal ban on the ownership of silverbacks, referencing as an example the tight gorilla laws in countries such as Japan, England, and Australia, where the annual rate of gorilla crimes is virtually nonexistent.

“There is absolutely no reason—not for hunting, protection, or otherwise—that an ordinary citizen would need to possess a 600-pound silverback,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), one of the most outspoken gorilla control advocates in Congress. “The general public frankly has no business owning apes of this size, and the only people who do are zookeepers who are trained to properly handle them. Otherwise, they are nothing but a threat to society and only serve to perpetuate more violence.”

Opponents to gorilla control legislation, however, appear to be fervent in their defense of their gorilla possession rights. A spokesperson for the powerful yet controversial national gorilla lobby told reporters that a ban on gorillas would not end incidents such as that in San Diego, as those who want the large primates could simply buy them from illegal dealers who smuggle them into the country from the jungles of sub-Saharan Africa.

Many gorilla owners also told sources that the creatures are primarily used for legal hunting purposes and that the overwhelming majority of gorilla enthusiasts are completely responsible with their apes.

“Listen, it’s my God-given right as an American to have the freedom to own a gorilla to protect myself and my family,” said Nashua, NH resident James Harrington, 46, adding that he personally owns 12 different gorillas of various sizes, but keeps them “safely locked away in [his] home.” “And the government has another thing coming if they think they can come into my house and take away my gorillas.”

“What happened in San Diego was horrible, but that doesn’t mean all gorillas are bad,” Harrington added. “In fact, if every person at that mall had a gorilla, then the tragedy probably never would have even happened in the first place.”

At press time, following the increase in national gorilla sales, four isolated gorilla attacks had just been reported across the country, with the overall civilian death toll currently estimated at 37.

[SunsBlood23]

I agree that is can be a dangerous path however, I just can't support the ban of guns. It's a fundamental right but I do believe there need to be serious restrictions. If you want to own a gun you must pass background tests, have a license showing you know how to use the damn thing, etc. This way only law-abiding, responsible citizens own guns. I DO NOT believe in "everyone" being able to own a gun. I just want to get that straight.

I like the ban on guns in Australia but we never had the same fascination and "right to bear arms" explicitly written anywhere so for most Australians, the gun ban more or less didn't affect them. That said, I still don't believe it should be a fundamental right, it's a privilege. A privilege that you can and should lose if you don't meet certain standard for ownership. You're on the right path with strict background tests, licensing and only law-abiding/responsible citizens should own a gun. As part of the requirements for licensing should also be psychological testing and a required minimal level of training.

Also, I think this somewhat pertains to those living out in the country where animals can actually be a problem and in case of an emergency, a gun is the only option. I live in AZ although I don't live anywhere where mountain lions would be but if I did, those things can kill you or a small child more realistically if they are hungry enough and a man himself is no match for one of those. Now I know this is a small percentage of the people but we can't ignore them and IMO if I lived in the city where crime is more common, I would feel much more comfortable at night knowing there is a gun hidden where I know it is and is at my disposal in case of a break in.

I think those who live outside the city, where agricultural pests and natural predatory dangers exists, would already have a gun. It's really in the cities, where there's a high population density, where the above measures would have the most effect. And I should point out that one shouldn't mistake confidence with security. Owning a gun doesn't mean you're more secure, it just means you're more confident. Owning a gun is different to being able to use it in an appropriate, effective and safe way in the very few and very rare occasions when it may be an option.

So I feel there are more people that could benefit from having a gun that don't even realize it.

I wouldn't advocate more guns on the street. Those that don't realise they need a gun, probably never saw the need for one. And in the majority of cases, those that do own a gun, likely have never needed it.

In a way I feel like we are agreeing with each other in that only law-abiding/responsible citizens can own a gun and they need a certain level of training/license in order to get one. However, you seem to be a little more for a ban on guns which I am completely against. I just can't see any way that turns out well. Besides, I guess my point with guns is that they are not the problem. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I have never seen a gun pull it's own trigger. So all in all, those people that are deemed "worthy" of having a gun have a right to if they so please.

Now I am tired of talking about guns, can we talk about something else? I'd like to hear yours as well as others' opinion on how society should be taxed? Taxes always seem to play with my emotions a little more than other issues I guess cause I just can't possibly understand the other side of the argument.

[lilfishi22]

In a way I feel like we are agreeing with each other in that only law-abiding/responsible citizens can own a gun and they need a certain level of training/license in order to get one. However, you seem to be a little more for a ban on guns which I am completely against. I just can't see any way that turns out well. Besides, I guess my point with guns is that they are not the problem. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I have never seen a gun pull it's own trigger. So all in all, those people that are deemed "worthy" of having a gun have a right to if they so please.

I'd love to see a ban on guns but reality is that the 2nd Amendment is in your constitutions which makes it closer to impossible than unlikely to enact. I agree with you that, in the society where a gun ban is impossible, only those who are deemed worthy should have the right to own one. But again, I agree with you, guns are just a tool and they aren't the problem, it's access to guns that is the problem and when it's so damn easy to get access to one, you're going to have a gun problem.

Now I am tired of talking about guns, can we talk about something else? I'd like to hear yours as well as others' opinion on how society should be taxed? Taxes always seem to play with my emotions a little more than other issues I guess cause I just can't possibly understand the other side of the argument.

Which side of the argument are you? Based on your post before about leaning more right than left, I'm assuming you're against taxes?

[SunsBlood23]

In a way I feel like we are agreeing with each other in that only law-abiding/responsible citizens can own a gun and they need a certain level of training/license in order to get one. However, you seem to be a little more for a ban on guns which I am completely against. I just can't see any way that turns out well. Besides, I guess my point with guns is that they are not the problem. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I have never seen a gun pull it's own trigger. So all in all, those people that are deemed "worthy" of having a gun have a right to if they so please.

I'd love to see a ban on guns but reality is that the 2nd Amendment is in your constitutions which makes it closer to impossible than unlikely to enact. I agree with you that, in the society where a gun ban is impossible, only those who are deemed worthy should have the right to own one. But again, I agree with you, guns are just a tool and they aren't the problem, it's access to guns that is the problem and when it's so damn easy to get access to one, you're going to have a gun problem.

Now I am tired of talking about guns, can we talk about something else? I'd like to hear yours as well as others' opinion on how society should be taxed? Taxes always seem to play with my emotions a little more than other issues I guess cause I just can't possibly understand the other side of the argument.

Which side of the argument are you? Based on your post before about leaning more right than left, I'm assuming you're against taxes?

It's not that I'm against taxes, it's that I don't believe in the progressive tax where the higher the income, the higher the percentage in taxes paid. I don't get in any way how that is fair. Why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage so if you have double the income of someone else, you pay double in taxes.

[lilfishi22]

It's not that I'm against taxes, it's that I don't believe in the progressive tax where the higher the income, the higher the percentage in taxes paid. I don't get in any way how that is fair. Why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage so if you have double the income of someone else, you pay double in taxes.

From a pure equity standpoint, it isn't fair. Those who have a higher income, shouldn't be paying more (as a percentage) than anyone else just because they earn more.

That being said, if you look at it from a societal standpoint, it does have merit. Let's assume 20% is the flat tax rate, someone earning $40k would be paying $8k in taxes, leaving them with $32k to live off. Comparatively, someone earning $200k would be paying $40k in taxes, leaving them with $160k to live off. Now, which one do you think that 20% would affect more? Do you think someone earning $200k can survive on a 20% tax rate? Definitely. 40% tax rate? Probably. 60% tax rate? They'll survive on $80k. What about the person earning $40k? They'll probably struggle with a 20% tax rate. 40% tax rate? Unlikely.

In a vacuum, you're totally right. Someone earning X dollars should pay the same tax rate as someone earning Y dollars. But what isn't taken into account is cost of living. Someone earning less is paying less in tax, sure but what they pay in taxes would affect them a lot more because of how close their net income would be to the poverty line.

So is it fair to tax the rich more? Probably not. And in reality, most of the rich pay a lower tax rate because of their ability to use tax loopholes to lower the tax they pay. But you're going to have to get tax revenue from somewhere to pay for your roads, military, healthcare, services etc. Taking more from the rich is less likely to affect them than it is to raise a flat tax rate which would significantly affect the lower income family. The whole point of a progressive tax is to reduce the burden on lower income individuals/families. With a lower tax rate, these lower income families can now spend on things like education, healthcare, basic needs and other essentials which higher income families take for granted and can still afford even if they were taxed at 50%. So while you say having a flat tax means the tax burden is equal, it really isn't. In reality, on one side of the spectrum, it's choosing between continuing education or quitting school at 16 to help out the family. On the other side of the spectrum, it could be the difference between buying your child a car as a graduation gift or not. Those are two very different realities, even if the tax rate may be the same.

[SunsBlood23]

It's not that I'm against taxes, it's that I don't believe in the progressive tax where the higher the income, the higher the percentage in taxes paid. I don't get in any way how that is fair. Why shouldn't everyone pay the same percentage so if you have double the income of someone else, you pay double in taxes.

From a pure equity standpoint, it isn't fair. Those who have a higher income, shouldn't be paying more (as a percentage) than anyone else just because they earn more.

That being said, if you look at it from a societal standpoint, it does have merit. Let's assume 20% is the flat tax rate, someone earning $40k would be paying $8k in taxes, leaving them with $32k to live off. Comparatively, someone earning $200k would be paying $40k in taxes, leaving them with $160k to live off. Now, which one do you think that 20% would affect more? Do you think someone earning $200k can survive on a 20% tax rate? Definitely. 40% tax rate? Probably. 60% tax rate? They'll survive on $80k. What about the person earning $40k? They'll probably struggle with a 20% tax rate. 40% tax rate? Unlikely.

In a vacuum, you're totally right. Someone earning X dollars should pay the same tax rate as someone earning Y dollars. But what isn't taken into account is cost of living. Someone earning less is paying less in tax, sure but what they pay in taxes would affect them a lot more because of how close their net income would be to the poverty line.

So is it fair to tax the rich more? Probably not. And in reality, most of the rich pay a lower tax rate because of their ability to use tax loopholes to lower the tax they pay. But you're going to have to get tax revenue from somewhere to pay for your roads, military, healthcare, services etc. Taking more from the rich is less likely to affect them than it is to raise a flat tax rate which would significantly affect the lower income family. The whole point of a progressive tax is to reduce the burden on lower income individuals/families. With a lower tax rate, these lower income families can now spend on things like education, healthcare, basic needs and other essentials which higher income families take for granted and can still afford even if they were taxed at 50%. So while you say having a flat tax means the tax burden is equal, it really isn't. In reality, on one side of the spectrum, it's choosing between continuing education or quitting school at 16 to help out the family. On the other side of the spectrum, it could be the difference between buying your child a car as a graduation gift or not. Those are two very different realities, even if the tax rate may be the same.

While I understand what you are saying with the 20% tax being too high for lower income families, the idea Republicans have is that the government needs to cut spending in areas that simply aren't needed. Everyone knows the government is astoundingly inefficient with the money they have and giving them more won't help. They need to cut spending which would cut taxes making it very doable for those lower income families. Also, if the rich are taxed less, there is more money to grow businesses, companies, etc which means they need to hire more people (lower unemployment rate) and possibility for more raises based on the idea that if one boss doesn't decide to give the raise to X employee, some other employer will. It's much like how we see it in the NBA, if X team isn't willing to pay X amount for X player, then some other team will because that player because it is worth it to them. If taxes were lowered anyway and it were to be a proportional tax then there would be no incentive for the rich to find loop holes. I just think that it's funny how Democrats are all about equality for everyone but they have no problem making taxes unfair for a select group based on the fact that they earn more money. I thought America was the land of opportunity? Why is it that a rich person is punished with taxes because they made the most of an opportunity and had great success. I don't get that and if the only rebuttal to that is "they can afford it" then there is no rebuttal at all. I'm not really directing this at you as much as I am the Democratic Party as a whole.

[lilfishi22]

While I understand what you are saying with the 20% tax being too high for lower income families, the idea Republicans have is that the government needs to cut spending in areas that simply aren't needed. Everyone knows the government is astoundingly inefficient with the money they have and giving them more won't help. They need to cut spending which would cut taxes making it very doable for those lower income families.

I agree the government is inefficient and certainly a lot needs to be cut. What would you cut from the budget?

Also, if the rich are taxed less, there is more money to grow businesses, companies, etc which means they need to hire more people (lower unemployment rate) and possibility for more raises based on the idea that if one boss doesn't decide to give the raise to X employee, some other employer will. It's much like how we see it in the NBA, if X team isn't willing to pay X amount for X player, then some other team will because that player because it is worth it to them.

There's a name for this school of thought within economics where if the rich (businesses) are given tax cuts, they will create more jobs and create more wealth for the lower income individuals who work for them. It's called trickle down economics and it's been disproven time and time again. The wealth/benefits just doesn't trickle down. Take a look at the data and don't just take what's been told to you as fact. There is empirical data that shows no correlation between cutting taxes for the rich and economic growth, wage increase, job creation or income growth. The below link is a very short summary
http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
The rich hoard the wealth not just for themselves but also for the equally important shareholders of their businesses/companies. In essence, if there is no correlation, then you're just growing the income inequality gap by keeping the money at the very top. Some don't like welfare for the poor because they see it as a money drain but trickle down economics is essentially welfare for the rich.

Also your equating an NBA player going from one team to another if one team doesn't want to pay him to your everyday blue collar worker is not a good comparison. A good NBA player would be considered a commodity, like a high skill level individual, and has value in the NBA free agent market. A comparison to an NBA player would be like a lawyer or a high level executive, where they have choices, they have skills employers want and they can very easily find someone that would pay them. That's just not true for most employed individuals today. Lower income individuals likely don't have high skill levels because in general they don't have a high education level. They are not going to jump from employer to employer in the hope of a raise because more often than not, they are lucky just to be employed and receiving a regular paycheck. And why would employers higher person X for more money than person Y when they do the same job? Your regular lower and even some middle income worker just don't have that kind of star/negotiation power. You just can't equate an NBA player, lawyer, dentist, investment manager to your factory workers, cleaners, laborers. The kind of job hopping these highly valued individuals can do, the majority of people can't.

If taxes were lowered anyway and it were to be a proportional tax then there would be no incentive for the rich to find loop holes. I just think that it's funny how Democrats are all about equality for everyone but they have no problem making taxes unfair for a select group based on the fact that they earn more money. I thought America was the land of opportunity? Why is it that a rich person is punished with taxes because they made the most of an opportunity and had great success. I don't get that and if the only rebuttal to that is "they can afford it" then there is no rebuttal at all. I'm not really directing this at you as much as I am the Democratic Party as a whole.

You don't think the rich, with alllllll their resources available to them, wouldn't still try and utilise the same resources (accountants, lawyers, overseas contacts etc) to exploit loopholes and pay even less tax? Do you really think that rich people aren't going to still look for loopholes and tax havens even if their tax rate is 15%? 10%? Tax havens and tax loopholes are avenues that only the rich exclusively can pursue because they have the resources. America is the land of opportunity and it gave these wealthy individuals the opportunity to build this wealth. What isn't fair is that right now, most rich individuals aren't paying their fair share of taxes because they have the means to pay less. And this is not a left or right issue, rich people whether they are Democrat or Republican are paying a disproportionately amount of tax compared to lower income people. Mitt Romney famously revealed he paid 14% tax rate during his run for presidency.

The rebuttal to why the rich should pay more is because they aren't giving back a fair amount back to the country. The country that gave them the opportunity to be wealthy, to no longer or ever worry about not having food on the table, shelter, education or whatever else. In order for the country to run, servicemen to be paid, healthcare costs to be paid, foreign debt to be paid, taxes must be paid. The lower income families are paying more than their share and you need to understand that 20% for the poor is very different to 20% to the rich even though mathematically 20%=20%.

[bwgood77]

The higher income citizens have benefited most from the policies that right wing extremists have been implementing for the past 25 years. The wealthy had the money to lobby for these policies and they benefit the most from them.

Sure, they work hard--at getting right wing politicians elected. And they're successful, because those politicians bias our economy to greatly favor them.
'
Many of them prey on low income citizens, by cutting or exporting jobs to foreign countries for cheaper labor, essentially taking money from lower income people to line their own pockets with more. They, in large part impact unemployment so they pay taxes to help pay for systems to not force people to become homeless and to give them a fighting chance (unemployment tax, SSDI, food stamps, welfare). I do agree that lazy people who exploit such systems need to have restrictions on how long they can receive such benefits, and most of these programs do have such restrictions.

Banks and credit card companies exploit the poor by giving them higher interest rates on credit therefore AGAIN lining their own pockets with lower income people's money. Investment banks manipulate stocks to take money from novice investors (eg....upgrading a stock rating from sell to hold to buy to pump up stock prices before dumping their massive holdings at peak value leaving the novice investors holding the bag and wiped out). I really wish these banks would have been shut down or forced to make it on their own or go out of business without getting massive bailouts in 2009.

And of course, the rich who DO help the poor or disadvantages by donating money to charities or non profits, create jobs AND can write those off for tax breaks.

[SunsBlood23]

While I understand what you are saying with the 20% tax being too high for lower income families, the idea Republicans have is that the government needs to cut spending in areas that simply aren't needed. Everyone knows the government is astoundingly inefficient with the money they have and giving them more won't help. They need to cut spending which would cut taxes making it very doable for those lower income families.

I agree the government is inefficient and certainly a lot needs to be cut. What would you cut from the budget?

Also, if the rich are taxed less, there is more money to grow businesses, companies, etc which means they need to hire more people (lower unemployment rate) and possibility for more raises based on the idea that if one boss doesn't decide to give the raise to X employee, some other employer will. It's much like how we see it in the NBA, if X team isn't willing to pay X amount for X player, then some other team will because that player because it is worth it to them.

There's a name for this school of thought within economics where if the rich (businesses) are given tax cuts, they will create more jobs and create more wealth for the lower income individuals who work for them. It's called trickle down economics and it's been disproven time and time again. The wealth/benefits just doesn't trickle down. Take a look at the data and don't just take what's been told to you as fact. There is empirical data that shows no correlation between cutting taxes for the rich and economic growth, wage increase, job creation or income growth. The below link is a very short summary
http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
The rich hoard the wealth not just for themselves but also for the equally important shareholders of their businesses/companies. In essence, if there is no correlation, then you're just growing the income inequality gap by keeping the money at the very top. Some don't like welfare for the poor because they see it as a money drain but trickle down economics is essentially welfare for the rich.

Also your equating an NBA player going from one team to another if one team doesn't want to pay him to your everyday blue collar worker is not a good comparison. A good NBA player would be considered a commodity, like a high skill level individual, and has value in the NBA free agent market. A comparison to an NBA player would be like a lawyer or a high level executive, where they have choices, they have skills employers want and they can very easily find someone that would pay them. That's just not true for most employed individuals today. Lower income individuals likely don't have high skill levels because in general they don't have a high education level. They are not going to jump from employer to employer in the hope of a raise because more often than not, they are lucky just to be employed and receiving a regular paycheck. And why would employers higher person X for more money than person Y when they do the same job? Your regular lower and even some middle income worker just don't have that kind of star/negotiation power. You just can't equate an NBA player, lawyer, dentist, investment manager to your factory workers, cleaners, laborers. The kind of job hopping these highly valued individuals can do, the majority of people can't.

If taxes were lowered anyway and it were to be a proportional tax then there would be no incentive for the rich to find loop holes. I just think that it's funny how Democrats are all about equality for everyone but they have no problem making taxes unfair for a select group based on the fact that they earn more money. I thought America was the land of opportunity? Why is it that a rich person is punished with taxes because they made the most of an opportunity and had great success. I don't get that and if the only rebuttal to that is "they can afford it" then there is no rebuttal at all. I'm not really directing this at you as much as I am the Democratic Party as a whole.

You don't think the rich, with alllllll their resources available to them, wouldn't still try and utilise the same resources (accountants, lawyers, overseas contacts etc) to exploit loopholes and pay even less tax? Do you really think that rich people aren't going to still look for loopholes and tax havens even if their tax rate is 15%? 10%? Tax havens and tax loopholes are avenues that only the rich exclusively can pursue because they have the resources. America is the land of opportunity and it gave these wealthy individuals the opportunity to build this wealth. What isn't fair is that right now, most rich individuals aren't paying their fair share of taxes because they have the means to pay less. And this is not a left or right issue, rich people whether they are Democrat or Republican are paying a disproportionately amount of tax compared to lower income people. Mitt Romney famously revealed he paid 14% tax rate during his run for presidency.

The rebuttal to why the rich should pay more is because they aren't giving back a fair amount back to the country. The country that gave them the opportunity to be wealthy, to no longer or ever worry about not having food on the table, shelter, education or whatever else. In order for the country to run, servicemen to be paid, healthcare costs to be paid, foreign debt to be paid, taxes must be paid. The lower income families are paying more than their share and you need to understand that 20% for the poor is very different to 20% to the rich even though mathematically 20%=20%.

I'm saying that if the tax were low enough, it simply wouldn't be worth the money spent to attempt to pay less in taxes. All these rich people have certain energy efficient stuff, grow certain types of crops, etc just so they get out of some taxes. All this hassle and money wouldn't be worth it if the taxes were lowered enough. And to answer your question about what I would cut, I would start somewhere with welfare. Maybe not cutting it all together but it has become more and more clear that more people are relying on government assistance and don't feel a real need to work. Also, what's counts as "disability" is unreal. You can watch the show "Judge Judy" and it seems as though every few people live off of disability and unemployment. And yet their answer for living off of disability is "I have a bad back". I remember some lady saying she had disability because of asthma!! Go get a desk job then. Whatever it takes to put food on the table and keep the lights on but instead Uncle Sam will just cuddle them and they know it so they find ways to play the system. The sad part is there absolutely are those that need government assistance but these "moochers" off the government screw it all up.

[saintEscaton]

While I understand what you are saying with the 20% tax being too high for lower income families, the idea Republicans have is that the government needs to cut spending in areas that simply aren't needed. Everyone knows the government is astoundingly inefficient with the money they have and giving them more won't help. They need to cut spending which would cut taxes making it very doable for those lower income families.

I agree the government is inefficient and certainly a lot needs to be cut. What would you cut from the budget?

Also, if the rich are taxed less, there is more money to grow businesses, companies, etc which means they need to hire more people (lower unemployment rate) and possibility for more raises based on the idea that if one boss doesn't decide to give the raise to X employee, some other employer will. It's much like how we see it in the NBA, if X team isn't willing to pay X amount for X player, then some other team will because that player because it is worth it to them.

There's a name for this school of thought within economics where if the rich (businesses) are given tax cuts, they will create more jobs and create more wealth for the lower income individuals who work for them. It's called trickle down economics and it's been disproven time and time again. The wealth/benefits just doesn't trickle down. Take a look at the data and don't just take what's been told to you as fact. There is empirical data that shows no correlation between cutting taxes for the rich and economic growth, wage increase, job creation or income growth. The below link is a very short summary
http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
The rich hoard the wealth not just for themselves but also for the equally important shareholders of their businesses/companies. In essence, if there is no correlation, then you're just growing the income inequality gap by keeping the money at the very top. Some don't like welfare for the poor because they see it as a money drain but trickle down economics is essentially welfare for the rich.

Also your equating an NBA player going from one team to another if one team doesn't want to pay him to your everyday blue collar worker is not a good comparison. A good NBA player would be considered a commodity, like a high skill level individual, and has value in the NBA free agent market. A comparison to an NBA player would be like a lawyer or a high level executive, where they have choices, they have skills employers want and they can very easily find someone that would pay them. That's just not true for most employed individuals today. Lower income individuals likely don't have high skill levels because in general they don't have a high education level. They are not going to jump from employer to employer in the hope of a raise because more often than not, they are lucky just to be employed and receiving a regular paycheck. And why would employers higher person X for more money than person Y when they do the same job? Your regular lower and even some middle income worker just don't have that kind of star/negotiation power. You just can't equate an NBA player, lawyer, dentist, investment manager to your factory workers, cleaners, laborers. The kind of job hopping these highly valued individuals can do, the majority of people can't.

If taxes were lowered anyway and it were to be a proportional tax then there would be no incentive for the rich to find loop holes. I just think that it's funny how Democrats are all about equality for everyone but they have no problem making taxes unfair for a select group based on the fact that they earn more money. I thought America was the land of opportunity? Why is it that a rich person is punished with taxes because they made the most of an opportunity and had great success. I don't get that and if the only rebuttal to that is "they can afford it" then there is no rebuttal at all. I'm not really directing this at you as much as I am the Democratic Party as a whole.

You don't think the rich, with alllllll their resources available to them, wouldn't still try and utilise the same resources (accountants, lawyers, overseas contacts etc) to exploit loopholes and pay even less tax? Do you really think that rich people aren't going to still look for loopholes and tax havens even if their tax rate is 15%? 10%? Tax havens and tax loopholes are avenues that only the rich exclusively can pursue because they have the resources. America is the land of opportunity and it gave these wealthy individuals the opportunity to build this wealth. What isn't fair is that right now, most rich individuals aren't paying their fair share of taxes because they have the means to pay less. And this is not a left or right issue, rich people whether they are Democrat or Republican are paying a disproportionately amount of tax compared to lower income people. Mitt Romney famously revealed he paid 14% tax rate during his run for presidency.

The rebuttal to why the rich should pay more is because they aren't giving back a fair amount back to the country. The country that gave them the opportunity to be wealthy, to no longer or ever worry about not having food on the table, shelter, education or whatever else. In order for the country to run, servicemen to be paid, healthcare costs to be paid, foreign debt to be paid, taxes must be paid. The lower income families are paying more than their share and you need to understand that 20% for the poor is very different to 20% to the rich even though mathematically 20%=20%.

I'm saying that if the tax were low enough, it simply wouldn't be worth the money spent to attempt to pay less in taxes. All these rich people have certain energy efficient stuff, grow certain types of crops, etc just so they get out of some taxes. All this hassle and money wouldn't be worth it if the taxes were lowered enough. And to answer your question about what I would cut, I would start somewhere with welfare. Maybe not cutting it all together but it has become more and more clear that more people are relying on government assistance and don't feel a real need to work. Also, what's counts as "disability" is unreal. You can watch the show "Judge Judy" and it seems as though every few people live off of disability and unemployment. And yet their answer for living off of disability is "I have a bad back". I remember some lady saying she had disability because of asthma!! Go get a desk job then. Whatever it takes to put food on the table and keep the lights on but instead Uncle Sam will just cuddle them and they know it so they find ways to play the system. The sad part is there absolutely are those that need government assistance but these "moochers" off the government screw it all up.

^This line of reasoning has been debunked by the failure of supply side tricklenomics, the working class has less dispobable incomes to make ends meet plain the simple. Proponents of a pure flat tax include cranks like Ben Carson, who likens it to a bibical tithe. Political realities make it only to possible to reduce the number of brackets, you can't entirely do away with marginal rate on every dollar that exceeds an arbitrary minimum, not a one size fits all. Its not the welfare state is seeing a resurgance it has been steadily dismantled since the days of Reagan/Thathcher. US "Progressives" nowadays are either nostalgic for the New Deal legacy or idealize Scandivanian social democracy,