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

[bripat9643]

BriPat hates solutions other than his one.

Richer rich and poorer poor. One solution fits all.

A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.

What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.

Superheroes?

What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people? I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions. That's called "freedom." That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.

 

[PMZ]

A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.

What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.

Superheroes?

What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people? I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions. That's called "freedom." That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.

No, that's called anarchy. It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.

Superheroes?

What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people? I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions. That's called "freedom." That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.

No, that's called anarchy. It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.

Leave it to the bootlicking worm to come up with a pejorative term for "freedom."

 

[PMZ]

What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people? I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions. That's called "freedom." That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.

No, that's called anarchy. It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.

Leave it to the bootlicking worm to come up with a pejorative term for "freedom."

You, personally, can have as much freedom as you want. But, it's not free. What you can't have for any price is the freedom to impose what unarguably doesn't work on everyone else.

 

[bripat9643]

No, that's called anarchy. It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.

Leave it to the bootlicking worm to come up with a pejorative term for "freedom."

You, personally, can have as much freedom as you want. But, it's not free. What you can't have for any price is the freedom to impose what unarguably doesn't work on everyone else.

I'm not proposing to impose anything on anyone, worm. That's your stock in trade.

Freedom is about allowing people to do what they want. Majority rule is about imposing the mob's prejudices on everyone. That's what you favor.

 

[dcraelin]

You're not fooling anyone. You're a lib.
Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money? Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

 

[bripat9643]

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

 

[ShawnChris13]

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.

So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.

....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.



Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

Or perhaps a populist is just someone who has differing opinions than you? Too many people seem to think that only the main stream conglomerate political parties have a monopoly on ideas and principles. Anyone outside that box is a 'fence rider' or something or other. Supporting the Republicans OR the Democrats only perpetuates their hold on our political system.

Haven't you ever wondered why other parties aren't invited to presidential debates? The Republicans and Democrats founded the institution that decides who gets the limelight. End result: just them.

 

[johnwk]

What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.

Superheroes?

What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people? I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions. That's called "freedom." That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.

No, that's called anarchy. It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.

So now you contend that our founding fathers were anarchists because they adopted a federal constitution which reserved to the states and the people therein control over their own lives, liberties and property and the internal order improvement and prosperity of the State?


I do not believe the following passage found in Federalist Paper No. 45 describes anarchy:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[RKMBrown]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

lol

In other words, you can't do the math or present anything that proves otherwise. You simply have some stupid rule that you've memorize without knowing how the economy functions, even at the most basic effect of inflation.

Dude, how many times do we have to explain real physical assets to you? The economy does not exist in a vacuum, nor can it be described by the few factors you mentioned. That is why statements like yours are entirely clueless to how the real world functions. Your assumptions amount to nothing more than, incorrect assumptions. But hey why don't you google up a bucket load of incorrect fud charts that back up your dumb ass straw-man arguments.



>> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.
Straw-man

>> This is, of course, one of two effects.
Straw-man

>> When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.
Straw-man

>> Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.
Straw-man

>> All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.
Straw-man

>> Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
Straw-man

>> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.
Bullshit straw-man.

>> Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency.
Straw-man.

>> Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.
Straw-man.

>> They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
Straw-man

>> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
Straw-man

>> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.
Straw-man.

>> If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.
Straw-man

>> Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.
Straw-man.

ROFL But hey, gratz on being able to poorly express the libtard view of macro-economics under the tyrannical rule of a socialist government.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

Soros invests to destroy economies of countries by betting against them and winning when they crash, he also earns a lot of money through quid pro quo with the president and the rest of the DNC.

 

[bripat9643]

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

Soros invests to destroy economies of countries by betting against them and winning when they crash, he also earns a lot of money through quid pro quo with the president and the rest of the DNC.

I recall Soros had a big investment in PetroBas, and the Obama regime arranged for the export-import bank to give them a $2 billion loan.

It's funny because PMS was recently blubbering in another thread about how Republicans are the kings of crony capitalism.

 

[dcraelin]

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.

 

[bripat9643]

The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it out there. .... Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.

No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.

Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems. That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.

 

[PMZ]

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.

No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.

Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems. That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.

Can't wait to see your evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.

No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.

Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems. That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.

Can't wait to see your evidence.

The evidence is the colossal failure of all government programs. Have any of them achieved the aims their supporters claim for them?

Government spending is just a black hole for good money.

 

[PMZ]

A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock. I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?

No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.

No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.

Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems. That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.

Full employment is the solution to all economic problems.

 

[bripat9643]

No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.

No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.

Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems. That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.

Full employment is the solution to all economic problems.

Full employment is the goal of economic policy, not the solution to economic problems.

We'll never have full employment unless the Dims stop trying to wreck the economy.

 

[PMZ]

No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.



Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems. That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.

Full employment is the solution to all economic problems.

Full employment is the goal of economic policy, not the solution to economic problems.

We'll never have full employment unless the Dims stop trying to wreck the economy.

President Obama has done everything government can do, and, in a remarkably short time, unraveled all of the damage that conservative economic policy under Bush, created.

Compare the recovery from the Great Recession from the Great Depression.

Business is now making record profits, but conservative bean counter business followers choose to invest money in executive bonuses rather than new products and technology development.

They love high unemployment because it leads to cheap labor. Their dream for the US. Make us like India and China.

We simply need more capable and more liberal business leaders.

Now.

 

[SuMar]

Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.

No such thing as fair. You get more, you pay more. Not as much more as you get, but some more.

No like? Find a better deal. The ultimate consumerism.

Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either. Do you also endorse that?

How about homosexuals? Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"

Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.

Libs are suppose to be for equality. I suppose they "pick and choose what is equal". I say equal percentage across the bored.