[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[dcraelin]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?
People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

 

[bripat9643]

If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in, I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.

I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history. You are.

Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.

Our Constitution is conservatism in writing, and you believe it's a failure.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking?

 

[bripat9643]

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

Why should taxes be fair if life's not?

Yeah, why not bring back slavery or segregation?

 

[bripat9643]

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?
People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What's "wrongheaded" about it?

 

[johnwk]

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

Actually, we live in a constitutionally limited system of government, and although I appreciate you posting your personal sense of what is "fair", the fact is, our Constitution lays out a fair share formula to be followed whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly. And that formula for direct taxation, turns out to be an equal per capita tax if levied directly upon the people!

The formula is:

State`s population
_________________ X sum being raised = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population



For example, if Congress lays a direct tax on the people of the united states and the people of New York each pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

I take it you do not support our Constitution's command for equal taxation when and if Congress taxes the people directly?


JWK

 

[dcraelin]

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
JWK

The above quote actually supports what I said, that there were differing opinions. Pinckney is equating direct taxes to the requisitions of the Articles of Confederation years.

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What's "wrongheaded" about it?

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.

 

[bripat9643]

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What's "wrongheaded" about it?

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.

Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges. Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.

The former type of exchange is moral and ethical. The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery. Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.

You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.

 

[PMZ]

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?
People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

Insurance spreads risk. Another way to look at it is that it spreads good and misfortune. The lucky ones who don't suffer loss pay more than they get, the unlucky ones who suffer the insured loss get more back than they put in.

Progressive taxation does the same. And, as I said before, it's easy for the wealthy ones to change places with the poor if they think that their tax burden is too much.

 

[dcraelin]

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.

Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges. Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
The former type of exchange is moral and ethical. The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery. Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer. Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.

 

[bripat9643]

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.

Insurance spreads risk. Another way to look at it is that it spreads good and misfortune. The lucky ones who don't suffer loss pay more than they get, the unlucky ones who suffer the insured loss get more back than they put in.

Progressive taxation does the same. And, as I said before, it's easy for the wealthy ones to change places with the poor if they think that their tax burden is too much.

Insurance is voluntary. Taxation is at the point of a gun. Why would I want to "share the risk" with an organization that has no problem covering alcoholics, drug addicts and people who engage in risky behavior?

Guido the leg breaker says the same thing: "If you don't like paying for my protection, then it's easy for you to move your business somewhere else."

It's easy for you to move to Cuba where the tax burden is more to your liking.

 

[PMZ]

I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history. You are.

Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.

Our Constitution is conservatism in writing, and you believe it's a failure.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking?

Our Constitution is extremely liberal. Progressive. It is the ultimate in equality with one person, one vote. Everyone with the same power over government.

 

[PMZ]

You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What's "wrongheaded" about it?

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.

Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges. Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.

The former type of exchange is moral and ethical. The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery. Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.

You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.

The whining of conservatives is like people who choose to live in a risky neighborhood. The natural question is, if this is too rough for you, why don't you move?

Why do you choose to live where people point guns at you?

 

[bripat9643]

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.

Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges. Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
The former type of exchange is moral and ethical. The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery. Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?

Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.

The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

 

[bripat9643]

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.

Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges. Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.

The former type of exchange is moral and ethical. The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery. Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.

You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.

The whining of conservatives is like people who choose to live in a risky neighborhood. The natural question is, if this is too rough for you, why don't you move?

Why do you choose to live where people point guns at you?

You sound just like Guido the Leg Breaker who tells the "clients" who pay him "protection" that they can just move to another neighborhood if they don't like his "services."

You're nothing but a cheap thug, PMS. That's all liberalism is: the moral code of thugs.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.

Our Constitution is conservatism in writing, and you believe it's a failure.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking?

Our Constitution is extremely liberal. Progressive. It is the ultimate in equality with one person, one vote. Everyone with the same power over government.

It didn't do that when it was written, so you must believe the Founding Fathers were reactionaries.

It actually still doesn't do that.

 

[PMZ]

Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges. Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
The former type of exchange is moral and ethical. The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery. Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?

Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.

The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

People who have been fortunate in life, aren't forced into wealth. If the obligations of it are unbearable, give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness, and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.

You are in full control. You have choices. Don't pay your taxes. We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.

Just stop whining.

 

[bripat9643]

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?

Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.

The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

People who have been fortunate in life, aren't forced into wealth. If the obligations of it are unbearable, give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness, and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.

You are in full control. You have choices. Don't pay your taxes. We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.

Just stop whining.

Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?

Of course not! You're proud of what you are!

 

[PMZ]

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?



The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

People who have been fortunate in life, aren't forced into wealth. If the obligations of it are unbearable, give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness, and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.

You are in full control. You have choices. Don't pay your taxes. We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.

Just stop whining.

Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?

Of course not! You're proud of what you are!

Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?

 

[bripat9643]

People who have been fortunate in life, aren't forced into wealth. If the obligations of it are unbearable, give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness, and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.

You are in full control. You have choices. Don't pay your taxes. We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.

Just stop whining.

Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?

Of course not! You're proud of what you are!

Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?

I don't come off as the village idiot. You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?

 

[dcraelin]

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?

it doesnt, The OP was about how much, and I assumed marginally progressive taxation. As I pointed out, 45% in times of peace and 70-90% in times of war would most likely keep our budget balanced.

Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.

The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be a war of all against all, and render life nasty, brutish, and short.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.