Thread: Michael Moore In His Own Words

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

Progressive income tax is unfair, regardless of ones political views. What is the supposed logic and fairness behind progressive taxation? A fair tax is a FLAT tax - as I use to say.

A flat income tax is unfair because the resultant tax is still progressive. The more you make the more you pay. The only fair tax is one that is equal or voluntary. Sales tax is fair, for example.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

In my opinion, it weakens his position falling to communism to show his view on how much the wealthy should be paying into the system. You use Buffett in your debate, I'll use him as well to say Buffett does not seem to reflect communism in his comments on how much the wealthy should pay in tax.

I can agree with that. Again, his stance was worded badly and pretty extreme. Buffett has phrased a similar argument better.

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

No it does NOT! This country is going straight down the toilet because of too much taxation, and unfair taxation. Only Zimbabwe are doing worse than Denmark when it comes to economical growth. I predict that Denmark will become the new Ireland or Greece within 5 years, if major tax reforms are not made.

Sorry to hear that then. Still, it's not like other countries with similar taxation are doing badly. Look at Norway, Australia, and Sweden. They're all doing pretty well.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Theyre paying the same amount taxes as when rates were 90%. Look it up.

That's quite a bold claim. I'd prefer you provide a source for that.

Originally Posted by jviehe

A flat income tax is unfair because the resultant tax is still progressive. The more you make the more you pay. The only fair tax is one that is equal or voluntary. Sales tax is fair, for example.

That's completely unrealistic for covering our current spending though.

Originally Posted by Steve

Michael Moore's a dipshit.

Have another burger, Mike. Your heart attack can't be far away...

He kinda misses insight.
The first time I saw him was on a book titled something like, “Big fat rich white men” with his picture on the cover. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

This is now a departure from his usual socialism rhetoric and is borderline communism now. It is almost hinting at that "common ownership" of wealth to suggest what he did or a part of communism. This part below somewhat hits that point home on his ideal views of the United States as a communist state. He is speaking about wealth, and his belief that all are entitled to it. More so, he is advocating wealth confiscation and theft suggesting one's ownership of their wealth does not exist in his view.

Originally Posted by Occams Razor

Sure, Moore's sentiment is a little extreme, but I understand the motivation behind him saying it.

Is Bill Gates truly worth the billions he owns? Not if you consider how much his success depends on the people below him.

To me, it's less a matter of ownership and more a matter of how everything is connected. What a billionaire gains through our markets is undeniably tied to infrastructure. Infrastructure is funded through taxes.

Everything that we "earn" as individuals still depends on the system as a whole. So, despite the individualistic spirit of Americans in general, it's good to keep in mind that what we achieve continually depends on the actions of others.

When thinking along those terms, it seems less like Communism and more like common sense that what the ultrawealthy "own" is still subject to reinvestment for the system.

People get bothered by this idea because of the government coercion involved, but they rarely are bothered by the coercion of the private sector on society as a whole when public infrastructures are seized by them (like what happened with the development of the internet).

Originally Posted by Sluggo

We are probably always going to have the debate going on how much wealth should be taken from the wealthy to pay for everyone else, which is to say have the debate on how much wealth redistribution is acceptable. I understand clearly that the left would rather this be more to pay for things it deems best to advance the disadvantaged. I also understand the right clearly full of intention of wealth protection. I guess what I am getting at is this is something that is not a new debate nor will go away anytime soon. I welcome the debate as when it comes to tax I've always held the opinion on looking at needed spending to determine needed income. If Moore had been talking about taxation rates for the wealthy less his views on who owns wealth you and I would be having an entirely different discussion and debate. And I would agree it is worthwhile discussion in terms of the present condition of spending and debt in this country.

My issue is with political extremism (to be honest, on both sides from conservatism and socialism) and as well take issue with supporters of communism in this case. While I tend to lean conservative it is obvious why I am always going to be sensitive to supporters of communism regardless of how well the debate is twisted to show some grand theory about utopia from common ownership, or some social milestone being crossed because more wealth more confiscated thus distributed from one group to another. Both of which Moore is advocating with his comments. Those that support Moore's position cannot help but support communistic ideas on what wealth is defined as in ownership.

And trust me, I am with you on understanding why Moore said what he did, at least in the context of the discussion on how much liability society puts on the wealthy to pay for others. As I said above, it is worthwhile discussion on tax issues and who should be paying what. There are plenty of sister conversations to have as well on the marketplace and advantages for the wealthy over everyone else. However, it does not make Moore's comments right. He is of course free to make them. But he is responsible for his comments thus I am free to hold him accountable per my original comments on this... advocacy of borderline communism. In my opinion, it weakens his position falling to communism to show his view on how much the wealthy should be paying into the system. You use Buffett in your debate, I'll use him as well to say Buffett does not seem to reflect communism in his comments on how much the wealthy should pay in tax.

Besides the OP (which can be seen an non communist if viewed as Occam explains, and you seem to agree with that) can you cite any other SPECIFIC examples of "borderline communism" he has said, made or done?

Originally Posted by John Drake

Besides the OP (which can be seen an non communist if viewed as Occam explains, and you seem to agree with that) can you cite any other SPECIFIC examples of "borderline communism" he has said, made or done?

No I have not, nor have I really looked so to be fair I will. The issue I take is even though I understand (and to an extent agree) with Occam's take on this it does not in my eyes diminish what Moore's stance is on Wealth in this country and who he thinks owns it. It is hard to debate that, it is his suggestion of common ownership and those holding the wealth not owning it that is key here. It was more about wealth as a national resource not a stance on taxation. There are very few options to categorize those thoughts Moore is speaking of other than in the category of communism. But, again to be fair I'll look for his take on other issues we face these days as Moore is not someone I follow. I would suspect those points of view he offers will be more inline with today's views on liberalism and socialism which appears to be the majority shared point of view of his following audience. I do not believe that is an unfair statement on his audience nor do I believe I am unfairly categorizing his comments as closer to communism over any other possible category.

Originally Posted by jviehe

A flat income tax is unfair because the resultant tax is still progressive. The more you make the more you pay. The only fair tax is one that is equal or voluntary. Sales tax is fair, for example.

One could say that a sales tax only is even more fair than a flat income tax. But that sales tax would have to be sky high in order to finance society IMO.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

That's quite a bold claim. I'd prefer you provide a source for that.



That's completely unrealistic for covering our current spending though.

Not true. There tons of research out there showing a national sales tax would be revenue neutral.

http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/BHI-LK...06%20FINAL.pdf

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

One could say that a sales tax only is even more fair than a flat income tax. But that sales tax would have to be sky high in order to finance society IMO.

23% is no higher than youre already paying in income.

Originally Posted by jviehe

23% is no higher than youre already paying in income.

But it's a lot more than the bottom tiers are paying - and an incredible burden for them. Nearly 1/4 of their income in taxes, on $7.25/hour?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

But it's a lot more than the bottom tiers are paying - and an incredible burden for them. Nearly 1/4 of their income in taxes, on $7.25/hour?

Still not true. The lowest income tax rate is 10%, plus another 7.5% FICA. And to be honest, you pay the employers contribution also in dimished salary, so were already up to 25%. Once you add in other govt taxes that are imbeded in prices, youre over 30%, maybe more. Again, this is all in the decades of research thats been done on taxation and how a national sales tax would be different. Then you have the prebate which effecitevely exempts taxes on poverty level spending. Youre actual total amount of your income that you would send to the govt would be less than 23%. It could be 0 even if you purchase used goods.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Still not true. The lowest income tax rate is 10%, plus another 7.5% FICA. And to be honest, you pay the employers contribution also in dimished salary, so were already up to 25%. Once you add in other govt taxes that are imbeded in prices, youre over 30%, maybe more. Again, this is all in the decades of research thats been done on taxation and how a national sales tax would be different. Then you have the prebate which effecitevely exempts taxes on poverty level spending. Youre actual total amount of your income that you would send to the govt would be less than 23%. It could be 0 even if you purchase used goods.

Mmm, there's a couple of fallacies here. First, as many of the conservatives are eager to point out, a number of the lower class get their income taxes back (if they don't mark themselves exempt to begin with) because they make so little and can rack up enough deductions and credits to offset their taxes. So, a national sales tax would be a tax hike. Second, it's wishful thinking at best to believe that employers would do anything but pocket the differential between what they pay now and what would be paid if the tax laws were changed. But, these arguments have been hashed out before - I suspect that we'll not convince each other this time around.