How much is a fair share?

[kwc57]

i dunno, i guess cuz the CONSTITUTION says that we should NOT! our founders knew that Defense spending could get way out of hand, and I believe this is why they stated such in the constitution....

for some reason, they were aware of the military industrial complex and the ease of going to war if we did just fund defense like drunken sailors and there is no tomorrow....?

Spending on the military during the worst days of the monarchy didn't come to half of what the US spent on defense during the Cold War and not a quarter of what we spend during WW II. Democracy is the cause of massive spending on the military, not the "military industrial complex." The historical record shows that democracy has lead to an explosion of military spending wherever it is in force.

massive military spending breaks a nation or empire....just look at the past....the Romans could be a start....

Massive spending breaks a nation, regardless of what the spending is.

 

[bripat9643]

9% 9% 9%.

Your Avatar looks just like my dog, except the spot is over the other eye.

 

[bripat9643]

massive military spending breaks a nation or empire....just look at the past....the Romans could be a start....

Welfare spending is what broke the Roman empire. When they couldn't afford their military because they were feeding so many parasites, they were doomed.

 

[Listening]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

curious...

would this mean that the government should decide if someone should be able to pay for and own a yacht or not....?

I mean..here is the reality....

If someone earns 5 million, they can easily live a nice comfortable lifestyle with a take home of 250K......so should they be taxed 4.75 Million?

No, the high end of the tax brackets should be based on an estimate as to what effect the tax would have on the economic productivity of the people in that bracket. Obviously taking 95% of the person's income will destroy all incentive to produce. Whether taking 70%, 50%, or 40% destroys incentive to produce to an extent that it hurts the economy is a question for economists. In my opinion anything over a 50% rate would probably effect incentive to produce.

I have not see anything on wealth distribution through the 1900's. I keep hearking about how high the tax brackets were in the 1950's and 1960's and I keep wondering how many people that actually affected.

Just musing out loud.

If things were such that there were not that many...who would care what the tax brackets were (except those few).

But if you now have more people in those upper income brackets, they would probably care.

O.K. now wait. Would it be worth while to see if the number of people in those upper brackets increased after all the tax cuts. It may correlate (but not be related). It sure would be interesting to see the statistics.

I am still waiting for a casaul analysis on the income data from the left. They don't seem to be to keen on sharing it. Hhhhmmmmmmmm......

 

[Ame®icano]

curious...

would this mean that the government should decide if someone should be able to pay for and own a yacht or not....?

I mean..here is the reality....

If someone earns 5 million, they can easily live a nice comfortable lifestyle with a take home of 250K......so should they be taxed 4.75 Million?

No, the high end of the tax brackets should be based on an estimate as to what effect the tax would have on the economic productivity of the people in that bracket. Obviously taking 95% of the person's income will destroy all incentive to produce. Whether taking 70%, 50%, or 40% destroys incentive to produce to an extent that it hurts the economy is a question for economists. In my opinion anything over a 50% rate would probably effect incentive to produce.

I have not see anything on wealth distribution through the 1900's. I keep hearking about how high the tax brackets were in the 1950's and 1960's and I keep wondering how many people that actually affected.

Just musing out loud.

If things were such that there were not that many...who would care what the tax brackets were (except those few).

But if you now have more people in those upper income brackets, they would probably care.

O.K. now wait. Would it be worth while to see if the number of people in those upper brackets increased after all the tax cuts. It may correlate (but not be related). It sure would be interesting to see the statistics.

I am still waiting for a casaul analysis on the income data from the left. They don't seem to be to keen on sharing it. Hhhhmmmmmmmm......

I am waiting for that since I started this thread.

But you can't blame them, right... for being so busy trolling on "bash the GOP" topics,

 

[Ame®icano]

I like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Simple and fair.

9% 9% 9%.

The first advantage of 9-9-9 plan is that would be impossible for Congress to hide the tax increase from the taxpayers. It is a transparent tax because it's the only tax being imposed by the federal government so any change in the rate is apparent to everyone.

The second advantage is that it eliminates the need for corporate lobbyists to petition members of Congress for special tax considerations, since plan forbids loopholes for special interest groups. That would also cut deeply into their campaign contributions since the lobbyists have no reason to contribute to obtain special tax considerations.

Those two advantages for taxpayers our politicians will see as disadvantages for them, since they love special interests, campaign contributions, complicated tax codes with hidden taxes... and since 9-9-9 plan is highly regressive, it has slim to none chance to pass the Congress.

 

[The T]

massive military spending breaks a nation or empire....just look at the past....the Romans could be a start....

Welfare spending is what broke the Roman empire. When they couldn't afford their military because they were feeding so many parasites, they were doomed.

Precisely. They kept the populace entertained and distracted.

 

[Big Fitz]

massive military spending breaks a nation or empire....just look at the past....the Romans could be a start....

Welfare spending is what broke the Roman empire. When they couldn't afford their military because they were feeding so many parasites, they were doomed.

Precisely. They kept the populace entertained and distracted.

Till they ran out of money... and the Legions decided to start making policy after crossing the Rubicon.

How soon till we cross our OWN Rubicon? Then fair shares will be doled out by merit of how many guns you have.

Nice picture eh?

 

[Wiseacre]

Fair. I'm beginning to hate that word, it's like we've become so hung up on what's fair for us compared to somebody else. Why isn't he/she paying more in taxes, why don't I get more from the gov't, why does somebody else get more than me?

To be sure, we've always worried about keeping up with the Joneses, to some extent anyway. But we used to try to catch up by upping our game in some way, to make more money or spend what we have more wisely to come out ahead. I'm sure such a concept has not left us entirely, but I do believe it has been diminished in recent years.

Now we're looking for more from outside ourselves, and in so doing giving away a certain amount of pride in ourselves as individuals and as a nation. Honor and integrity are not what they once were, as we are more intent on what we deserve rather than what we have earned through our own efforts. If that trend continues I think what is "fair" will become less and less.

 

[bripat9643]

Till they ran out of money... and the Legions decided to start making policy after crossing the Rubicon.

How soon till we cross our OWN Rubicon? Then fair shares will be doled out by merit of how many guns you have.

Nice picture eh?

They ran out of money 400 years after Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

 

[Big Fitz]

Till they ran out of money... and the Legions decided to start making policy after crossing the Rubicon.

How soon till we cross our OWN Rubicon? Then fair shares will be doled out by merit of how many guns you have.

Nice picture eh?

They ran out of money 400 years after Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Something tells me we won't be so lucky.

That same little something tells me I need a refresher on my Roman history.

 

[Ame®icano]

Two weeks into this thread... Left is not answering.

Top 1% pays 38% bottom 50% pays virtually nothing. Left claims it's not fair.

If that is not fair tell us what would be?

 

[Big Fitz]

Two weeks into this thread... Left is not answering.

Top 1% pays 38% bottom 50% pays virtually nothing. Left claims it's not fair.

If that is not fair tell us what would be?

Probably the top 10% pays 100% the rest ride free and make money off their backs like de good slaves dey is.

 

[Ame®icano]

If we don't know what "fair share" is, how we can talk about solving the problem.

Left keep saying that what we have now is not fair.

OK, let's say it's not. So, tell us what would be fair.

 

[Listening]

If we don't know what "fair share" is, how we can talk about solving the problem.

Left keep saying that what we have now is not fair.

OK, let's say it's not. So, tell us what would be fair.

More than that, why not discuss the issue of "fair" ?

Fair is not the objective of the Constitution.

Fair is not a measure I can really define.

Where is it written anyone has to pay their "fair share" ?

In my mind, what is fair to you and what is fair to me and what is fair to everyone else is as unique as we are as individuals. The best we can hope for is to clear the path so that we all the best input into the system we want to live under and hope against hope that the system we chose provides the best opportunity for all.

When you try to measure systems in terms of fairness, you take the conversation to a place were it can't possibly succeed.

I worry more about getting the lies out off the airwaves and motivating voters to actually get engaged than I do about fair. When people look around them and see what is going on and decide to get involved, I have every confidence that equity and fairness will the least of our worries.

As long as we have the large zombie voterhood created by the likes of the DailyKos and Rush Limbaugh........we should know we have a lot of work to do.

 

[Listening]

Two weeks into this thread... Left is not answering.

Top 1% pays 38% bottom 50% pays virtually nothing. Left claims it's not fair.

If that is not fair tell us what would be?

Probably the top 10% pays 100% the rest ride free and make money off their backs like de good slaves dey is.

Do people realize that putting the hands of the government in the top 10% (and if they are paying all the taxes you can bet they will be motivated to be engaged...what motivation will the rest of us have......?) is asking for something line one of the early European monarchies ?

 

[DiamondDave]

"Fair" is as subjective as it gets.... "fair" in a political discussion usually means "I want more for me"

"Fair" should not be the objective of the government at ANY level... Equal treatment by government under law should be the objective

 

[Big Fitz]

Two weeks into this thread... Left is not answering.

Top 1% pays 38% bottom 50% pays virtually nothing. Left claims it's not fair.

If that is not fair tell us what would be?

Probably the top 10% pays 100% the rest ride free and make money off their backs like de good slaves dey is.

Do people realize that putting the hands of the government in the top 10% (and if they are paying all the taxes you can bet they will be motivated to be engaged...what motivation will the rest of us have......?) is asking for something line one of the early European monarchies ?

You realize that socialism is nothing more than neo-feudalism... but with the party made nobility, right?

 

[Chris]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Go to ReaganBushDebt.org

This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

This is also the reason we have such a great disparity of wealth in America.

 

[Big Fitz]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Go to ReaganBushDebt.org

This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

This is also the reason we have such a great disparity of wealth in America.

P-BO's 1.9 trillion dollar spending deficit in 1 year defeats anything you claim Reagan/Bush41 ever did.

Failed in another topic I see.