johnsobas said:
mrstickball said:
johnsobas said:
Baalzamon said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
ramses01 said:
Rath said:
A flat tax is basically 'lets fuck the poor so the rich get richer'. It's obvious that the poor can't afford to have as much of their income taxed as the rich can. A flat tax is not a 'fair' tax, it's a blatantly unfair tax when you consider quality of life, it essentially means that the rich will be able to live a better quality of life than the good one they currently have and the poor will be able to live a worse quality of life than the poor one they currently have. Because widening the wealth gap is what everyone wants right?
Also relying on charity doesn't work. Charity is nice, but it's not thorough.
Finally the 'trickle down' effect is complete rubbish, it doesn't trickle down, it just pools at the top.
|
This is complete and utter nonesense. The flat tax is the only fair tax. If you want to have segmented tax rates, then the poor should pay a HIGHER tax rate than the rich as they consume a disportionate amount of the services. If the poor can't afford the taxes then they should get better jobs, it is as simple as that.
|
Who has more to gain from funding a military that protects America's oil and trade interests? The poor or the rich?
Who has more to gain from funding roads and bridges to ensure the safe delivery of goods across the country? The poor or the rich?
Who has more to gain from funding education and health care so they can have an educated healthy pool of workers to hire from? The poor or the rich?
Who has more to gain from funding the bailout? The poor or the rich assholes on Wall Street that got us into this mess?
etc. etc. etc.
Rich people get more out of America (or any stable government and economy for that matter), so they should put more back in.
|
Well, with your school remark, the people that get the most out of school are actually the people that strive to get the most out of it. It is one's own fault if they did not try in school and could not do something as simple as getting at least semi-decent grades (C's and better). I have to laugh, there was a kid in my high school wanted me to help him with math, because he has lots of trouble on it. I decided, sure, I'll do a good thing. Next day, he's texting in class. No more tutoring him by me.
|
right, it never has anything to do with the fact that schools are paid for by property taxes. It has nothing to do with the fact that schools in poor areas are severely underfunded. Just blame the poor for being lazy.
|
Actually, if you look at test scores vs. funding, you find that the less a school gets, the better the grades. Compare inner city Detroit schools which get ~$16,000 per student with my rural Ohio school which gets $6,000 per student. Actually, you can compare virtually every under-performing school in any city with virtually any school outside and find that the inner city schools always spend far more for far less.
Heck, look at Cornerstone in Detroit. They have a 98% graduation rate and cost about $10,000 per student. They take the same poverty-striken kids on welfare and graduate them at a rate 3x that of public school. I wonder...Why should we continue to fund failing schools when we see private ones that do so much better with so less?
|
i dont' have all the stats for everywhere in front of me, but for example in new york there is a direct correlation with graduation rate and the amount of money spent. This is for new york state.
School districts with graduation rates of less than 50% spent an average of $13,593;
School districts with a 50% to 67% graduation rate spent an average of $15,009;
School districts with a graduation rate of between 67% and 90% spent an average of $15,916;
School districts with more than a 90% graduation rate spent an average of $18,551
|
