Fair Share Poll

[kaz]

JFK said to ask what can you do for your country, not what can your country do for you.

Today, those from his party ask, what's important to me, and who can afford it better then I can so I can send them the bill...

 

[Care4all]

FYI....income- is defined as profits in the 16th amendment and in our tax code...

The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Pierce Butler, stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

So, with an income flat tax, a standard deduction or personal exemption for the cost of living MUST be present for everyone, in order for it to pass constitutional/legal muster....

 

[Nosmo King]

Well Nosmo, try to run an economy without the people who stuck their necks out to take risks, develop prototypes that became mass produced products, who have engineered and fabricated and put together systems and production lines and concepts resulting in products and services to sell. See how well the poor get along in societies where there are few rich to provide loans, venture capital, jobs, philanthropy, and a market for goods and servicesl.

Your way is to give power to the government to dictate who deserves to be taxed and who does not. I want to give the power to the people to use and invest and risk and spend their money as they see fit as much as that can possibly be accomplished. And I do not trust government to decide who can 'afford it' and who cannot.

The difference is being subject to a monarch or dictator or totalitarian government with the power to dictate the destiny of its subjects and a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to govern themselves and prosper as they are able.

Class envy has no place in a free society and the principle should be to encourage all to prosper, not punish those who do and reward those who do not.

All right. Someone making $25,000 gets taxed at 15%. that takes $3,750 out of his potential disposable income. That's $312.50 a month.

At $25,000 a year, things get pretty damn tight.

Tell that person from whom you're taking that $312.50 a month how much freer he is now! Tell him that it's only fair that he pays that extra $312.50 a month because there is someone on the other side of town who makes $250,000 and asking that person to pay higher taxes just doesn't amount to freedom. Never mind that person on the other side of town can still afford food, shelter, utility payments, clothing, gasoline and insurance premiums. Just because you're losing the $312.50 extra a month (which would help close the gap in those expenses) you're gaining so much more opportunity and freedom as a result!

Don't forget to tell him who made it possible to get so frickin' free!

 

[Care4all]

FYI....income- is defined as profits in the 16th amendment and in our tax code...

The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Pierce Butler, stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

So, with an income flat tax, a standard deduction or personal exemption for the cost of living MUST be present for everyone, in order for it to pass constitutional/legal muster....

I don't think a flat tax can take place WITHOUT a standard deduction per person, for their expenses....it would not meet constitutional muster....

NO ONE'S FULL INCOME can be taxed, because the constitutional definition of Income is PROFITS.....this is why we have the standard deductions and personal exemptions, BEFORE we are taxed now.

there MUST be an exemption for our own cost of living before they can tax our income. PERIOD.

so that family making 25k, could have 20k or so of that exempted from taxation and above that could be taxed....so 5k at the 15%...that would be about $60 bucks a month....

Still alot for a family making 25k.....but not as bad as the $350 a month.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well Nosmo, try to run an economy without the people who stuck their necks out to take risks, develop prototypes that became mass produced products, who have engineered and fabricated and put together systems and production lines and concepts resulting in products and services to sell. See how well the poor get along in societies where there are few rich to provide loans, venture capital, jobs, philanthropy, and a market for goods and servicesl.

Your way is to give power to the government to dictate who deserves to be taxed and who does not. I want to give the power to the people to use and invest and risk and spend their money as they see fit as much as that can possibly be accomplished. And I do not trust government to decide who can 'afford it' and who cannot.

The difference is being subject to a monarch or dictator or totalitarian government with the power to dictate the destiny of its subjects and a government that secures the rights of the people and then leaves them alone to govern themselves and prosper as they are able.

Class envy has no place in a free society and the principle should be to encourage all to prosper, not punish those who do and reward those who do not.

All right. Someone making $25,000 gets taxed at 15%. that takes $3,750 out of his potential disposable income. That's $312.50 a month.

At $25,000 a year, things get pretty damn tight.

Tell that person from whom you're taking that $312.50 a month how much freer he is now! Tell him that it's only fair that he pays that extra $312.50 a month because there is someone on the other side of town who makes $250,000 and asking that person to pay higher taxes just doesn't amount to freedom. Never mind that person on the other side of town can still afford food, shelter, utility payments, clothing, gasoline and insurance premiums. Just because you're losing the $312.50 extra a month (which would help close the gap in those expenses) you're gaining so much more opportunity and freedom as a result!

Don't forget to tell him who made it possible to get so frickin' free!

I'll refer you to Care's post for perspective because I put that in there during this discussion.

But you're still dodging my questions.

One was: When Citizen A educates himself, works hard, learns a trade, and prospers while being a philanthropic exemplary law abiding and productive citixzen of his community, what makes Citizen B, who chose not to do any of that, entitled to anything that Citizen A earns?

How do you justify Citizen B being able to vote for people who will ensure that he never has to accept any responsibility for the society in which he lives and continue to obligate Citizen A to pay his share?

 

[Nosmo King]

But you're still dodging my questions.

One was: When Citizen A educates himself, works hard, learns a trade, and prospers while being a philanthropic exemplary law abiding and productive citixzen of his community, what makes Citizen B, who chose not to do any of that, entitled to anything that Citizen A earns?

How do you justify Citizen B being able to vote for people who will ensure that he never has to accept any responsibility for the society in which he lives and continue to obligate Citizen A to pay his share?

Your question is a loaded one. You are presuming that person B is getting something from person A when person B is not necessarily doing anything of the sort. But, let's look at the question.

Person A educates himself. Just like Lincoln with homework on the back a shovel, or like I did in public schools? Person A learns a trade. Who presumed person B has no marketable skills? And if person B has marketable skills, should he be punished because his skills don't have the same market value as the skill set of person A? We can't all be brain surgeons. Someone has to do the welding. Just because a person's skill set is less valuable than another's, does that mean the person is worth less to society?

Person A is philanthropic. Does that exclude person B from giving as well? Person B does not have the means to write a five figure check to his favorite charity, and yet he still finds a dollar to put in the Salvation Army kettle or he finds the time to attend a spaghetti dinner fund raiser for his neighbor's kid who was diagnosed with leukemia and has no health care. But, I guess size matters when comparing the charity of the rich to the charity of the poor.

Person A is a law abiding citizen. While we must presume that person B, by nature of his economic standing must be an arch felon.

And the last question you posed dealt with voting status. Person B seems to have lost not only a sizable portion of his disposable income to Conservative policy, but the actual right to vote as well! First, Conservatives want to make his income lower by taxing it, and then, because he is not as wealthy as his neighbor, they further want to erase his rights as an American.

What a grand vision for America Conservatives have! Truth, justice and the American way so long as you can pay for it.

 

[Care4all]

federal income taxes or any tax can not be in the picture when it comes to a citizen's RIGHT TO VOTE Foxfyre....that would be a poll tax.

it is a bit uppity and elitist dear, for you to even think in that manner imho.

There is much much much more to our gvt than what taxes you pay...

and are you willing to take away voting rights of those that lobby congress to give them loop holes to avoid their taxes due?

you have walked the fine line on this and fallen off, again, imho.

AND btw, it is:

NO taxation, without Representation,

NOT

NO representation, without taxation....

 

[Polk]

So who here would support a flat tax on all forms of income? And when I say all forms of income, I really mean all forms of income.

 

[percysunshine]

100% If we define 'rich' as anyone earning more than minimum wage. Fair is fair if the government gets to take everything. Not that that has ever caused problems before in history.

 

[percysunshine]

So who here would support a flat tax on all forms of income? And when I say all forms of income, I really mean all forms of income.

Does that mean when my dog nuzzles me, I have to give a 15% nuzzle to my congressman?

 

[Polk]

So who here would support a flat tax on all forms of income? And when I say all forms of income, I really mean all forms of income.

Does that mean when my dog nuzzles me, I have to give a 15% nuzzle to my congressman?

I think we'd need to find a nuzzle to dollars conversion formula.

My point is that most "flat tax" proposals only focus on wage income. They leave income from things like capital gains untouched.

 

[percysunshine]

So who here would support a flat tax on all forms of income? And when I say all forms of income, I really mean all forms of income.

Does that mean when my dog nuzzles me, I have to give a 15% nuzzle to my congressman?

I think we'd need to find a nuzzle to dollars conversion formula.

My point is that most "flat tax" proposals only focus on wage income. They leave income from things like capital gains untouched.

As long as I don't have to nuzzle my congressman, 15% sounds fair to me.

Of course...the unemployed HRBlock and IRS workers might need a nuzzle.

 

[Intense]

So who here would support a flat tax on all forms of income? And when I say all forms of income, I really mean all forms of income.

Count me in.

 

[Dot Com]

Nothing is as egregious as the logic used to justify a flat tax rate. Currently the uber wealthy pay less than 35% That's 35% on incomes that would give the working poor nose bleeds.

So, Conservatives (never ones to miss an opportunity to fuck the middle class) now champion this idiocy called a flat tax.

What these Conservatives are asking for is a REDUCTION in the rates the wealthy pay from 35% to 15%.

Meanwhile, back in the home with three kids, medical bills, a mortgage and tuition payments on a $40,000 income, tax rates would skyrocket to 15%. We're always told that the working poor and less advantaged pay no taxes.

Way to grow the economy! Put more wealth into fewer hands! Concentrate more wealth and dilute the spending power of the real engine of the economy; the middle class.

What a patently stupid and unfair idea. Typical for Conservatives who only think of how to get rich (despite the reality they never will).

And why should they not be paying a fair share of tax right along with everyone else?

Because the burden is greater on those living marginally. Will the rich have to worry about taking a second or third job to make ends meet? will the rich ever decide food or medicine this month?

What the hell is is with hypocritical Conservatives? I thought one of the tenets of your faith was strong family values? With a flat tax, less money in the household doesn't mean the difference between a Cadillac or a Benz. It means the difference between Mom and Dad around in the evening to help with homework, or off to their night jobs. Grand way to strengthen the family: make them poorer than they already are.

This is what the Xtreme righties don't seem to unnerstand. I guess it wasn't discussed in Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Intense]

And why should they not be paying a fair share of tax right along with everyone else?

Because the burden is greater on those living marginally. Will the rich have to worry about taking a second or third job to make ends meet? will the rich ever decide food or medicine this month?

What the hell is is with hypocritical Conservatives? I thought one of the tenets of your faith was strong family values? With a flat tax, less money in the household doesn't mean the difference between a Cadillac or a Benz. It means the difference between Mom and Dad around in the evening to help with homework, or off to their night jobs. Grand way to strengthen the family: make them poorer than they already are.

This is what the Xtreme righties don't seem to unnerstand. I guess it wasn't discussed in Atlas Shrugged.

I'll choose :Value for Value", for richer or poorer, better or worse, over "What's Your's is Your's and What's Mine is Your's", any day. If you did not have schemes to defraud, you would have nothing at all.

 

[Care4all]

i support one flat tax for every person's income, for all taxes collected by the Fed AND on all income, over and above a Standard deduction for every person, for their cost of living.

 

[AVG-JOE]

None of the above.

7% General Sales Tax on every purchase
+
7% Tax on income in excess of $3 Million / year for Citizens, all income for aliens with authorization to work.

7 + 7 on 3

Most fair tax proposal I've heard of.

 

[AVG-JOE]

All of those are too high, IMO.

Every US Citizen should pay a flat tax of 15%, regardless of income.

That sounds good. After the debt is paid off. But take note, the big mouthed liberals who scream "fair share" won't go public on the poll.. just as I figured.

You put unrealistic choices in for my liberal tastes - that's why I went with 'none of the above'.

 

[Foxfyre]

federal income taxes or any tax can not be in the picture when it comes to a citizen's RIGHT TO VOTE Foxfyre....that would be a poll tax.

it is a bit uppity and elitist dear, for you to even think in that manner imho.

There is much much much more to our gvt than what taxes you pay...

and are you willing to take away voting rights of those that lobby congress to give them loop holes to avoid their taxes due?

you have walked the fine line on this and fallen off, again, imho.

AND btw, it is:

NO taxation, without Representation,

NOT

NO representation, without taxation....

No dear. That is not what I said nor even implied. You must not have read what I said.

My beef is in exempting some people from the tax code when they are able to vote to tax everybody else. If EVERYBODY is subject to the tax code in the same way, that problem, and the opportunity for blatant graft and corruption, is eliminated. Only when we all share equally in the consequences of what our elected leaders do will there be universal incentive for EVERYBODY to vote people who will do the right thing into office rather than vote people who benefit our special group into office.

I am not saying take away anybody's right to vote.

I am saying take away their incentive to vote the wrong people into office.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you're still dodging my questions.

One was: When Citizen A educates himself, works hard, learns a trade, and prospers while being a philanthropic exemplary law abiding and productive citixzen of his community, what makes Citizen B, who chose not to do any of that, entitled to anything that Citizen A earns?

How do you justify Citizen B being able to vote for people who will ensure that he never has to accept any responsibility for the society in which he lives and continue to obligate Citizen A to pay his share?

Your question is a loaded one. You are presuming that person B is getting something from person A when person B is not necessarily doing anything of the sort. But, let's look at the question.

Person A educates himself. Just like Lincoln with homework on the back a shovel, or like I did in public schools? Person A learns a trade. Who presumed person B has no marketable skills? And if person B has marketable skills, should he be punished because his skills don't have the same market value as the skill set of person A? We can't all be brain surgeons. Someone has to do the welding. Just because a person's skill set is less valuable than another's, does that mean the person is worth less to society?

Person A is philanthropic. Does that exclude person B from giving as well? Person B does not have the means to write a five figure check to his favorite charity, and yet he still finds a dollar to put in the Salvation Army kettle or he finds the time to attend a spaghetti dinner fund raiser for his neighbor's kid who was diagnosed with leukemia and has no health care. But, I guess size matters when comparing the charity of the rich to the charity of the poor.

Person A is a law abiding citizen. While we must presume that person B, by nature of his economic standing must be an arch felon.

And the last question you posed dealt with voting status. Person B seems to have lost not only a sizable portion of his disposable income to Conservative policy, but the actual right to vote as well! First, Conservatives want to make his income lower by taxing it, and then, because he is not as wealthy as his neighbor, they further want to erase his rights as an American.

What a grand vision for America Conservatives have! Truth, justice and the American way so long as you can pay for it.

Just answer the question at face value please without all your other assumptions going into it. I can build all sorts of strawmen and add a lot of non sequiturs and ad hominem too. Please don't rewrite the question because you don't like the way it is written.