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

[thereisnospoon]

Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't

Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?

A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.

People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good

Whatever. 10% of $75k is more than 10% of $25k....
So everyone should pay the same percentage ...Flat tax. No deductions.
The tax code should fit on a 8 1/2 X 11 piece of paper.

 

[Foxfyre]

Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?

A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.

People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good

Whatever. 10% of $75k is more than 10% of $25k....
So everyone should pay the same percentage ...Flat tax. No deductions.
The tax code should fit on a 8 1/2 X 11 piece of paper.

In the case of salaries and wages, I agree. With a true flat tax, there would be little need for a tax code other than to define what salaries and wages are and that would need to be spelled out. The guy who gets paid in merchandise or chickens or whatever is still receiving value for labor and would need to claim that as income.

For the self employed and corporations there would still need to be a tax code to define what costs of doing business can be used to offset income as taxes would be paid on profits rather than income.

But all things being equal, whether wages or profits, a flat tax absolutely levels the playing field and is the least regressive and most fair means of acquiring the funds the government must have to do its constitutionally mandated functions.

What conservatives understand and most liberals do not seem to understand is that a person's labor, his experience, his expertise, his creative abilities, etc. etc. is something he can sell to the highest bidder. But to the employer the wages and benefits and all other costs associated with them are simply one more cost of doing business no different than inputs, overhead, toilet paper, and printer's ink. And in a free market system, the wages are the amount the employer must pay in order hire people with the skills to maximize his profits.

With a flat tax system and inability to use the tax code to assign winners and losers, government would have much less incentive to keep people dependent on government and much more incentive to establish policy that would encourage people to get to work and make money so they will be paying their fair share of taxes to the government.

 

[ilia25]

I believe I have.

No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.

I dare you to show that I have not posted links that disprove your comments and theories.

Easy. For example, I said, in response to your post on the matter, that government spending will not crowd out private investment because the companies already sit on mountain of cash they do not want to spend.

You have never disputed this claim, much less offering any proof that it is not true.

See? It is so easy to play a thoroughly dishonest and manipulative game to derail the discussion.

That is what you are trying to do by claiming that everything I said is lies because someone said that FDR caused the Great Depression. That was a dishonest attempt to avoid disputing what I actually said.

But for one, I completely destroyed your argument that FDR's policies were necessary

Stop lying, I never made such an argument, and I never commented on necessity or effectiveness of FDR policies.

So you have not "destroyed" anything. You have quoted from a highly dubious study criticizing a single FDR policy -- NIRA -- which was in effect for 2 years before it was deemed unconstitutional in 1935. Needless to say that Obama could not have enacted anything resembling NIRA. So how can you say that the government policy caused this depression, or, for that matter, the depression in 30s?




BTW, this is how FDR policies affected the economy:

 

[ilia25]

I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

You are such a stupid liar! Show me where I said that.

Ahh, forgive me. You said 66% - not 70%. My bad.

I never said that the top 1% paid 66% either. You are simply to stupid to achieve any reasonable level of reading comprehension.

YES THEY DID!

A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.

See, if you weren't such a moron, you would understand the difference between the top 1% earners and those making million or more. Those are not the same group of people.

In any case, you're still wrong.

The effective rate back then for 1%ers wasn't 60%, 50% or even 40%. It was 30%.

It is true that the top 1% paid 30% rate. But how that contradicts the claim that people making a million or more had paid at least 66% effective rate?

 

[AmazonTania]

Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

Oh, that nice. You don't really understand how bankruptcy works, either...

Oh that's nice you get shown how executives take big money while sinking a company destroying what you said and you act like you actually have some knowledge, yes the different color nail polish discussion is more your intellectual speed.

The courts rewarded Hostess executives those bonuses. Even then, during the bankruptcy process, executives are paid last. Not first.

As I said, you really don't understand how bankruptcy works, but still keep speaking on topics beyond your understand.

 

[AmazonTania]

Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.

Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States

Top 1% Bottom: 99%

1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.

It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.

People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more. But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.

And, there is a fool born every minute.

 

[FA_Q2]

Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.

And, there is a fool born every minute.

Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?

ALERT:

 

[PMZ]

Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States

Top 1% Bottom: 99%

1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.

It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.

People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more. But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.

Income inequality always has been, and will be, claimed by the wealthy as an entitlement.

Remember, "let them eat cake"?

In the mere 8 years of the Bush Administration the wealthy made huge strides in getting government out of the way of them having it all.

They even have the most gullible now believing that wealth comes from wealth, not work.

They dream of Versailles, and many have achieved it.

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.

And, there is a fool born every minute.

Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?

ALERT:

Why do you think the wealthy have you eating out of the government is too big trough?

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.

And, there is a fool born every minute.

Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?

ALERT:

Certainly no conservatives on this board have ever suggested that. That is a fiction the left puts out there in their effort to justify government over regulation, excessive control, and power grab.

But one thing PMZ is right about is that we claim income inequality as an unalienable right.

When I stay in school and educate myself, take whatever work I can get wherever I can get it at whatever wage I can get in order to acquire a work ethic, develop marketable skills, master a trade to make myself more valuable to an employer, when I expect to support myself and my family and do not look to others to do that for me, when I am willing to work long hours and make what sacrifices are necessary to achieve my goals. . . .

. . . .and then I prosper. . . .

I do not feel the least bit guilty if I earn three or four times more than the one who was unwilling to do any of those things and therefore subsists on low wages or the government dole. Such income inequality is virtuous, honorable, justifiable, and must be defended at all costs if we wish to be a free people.

 

[AmazonTania]

It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.

It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.

People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more. But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.

Income inequality always has been, and will be, claimed by the wealthy as an entitlement.

Clarify.

Remember, "let them eat cake"?

No.

In the mere 8 years of the Bush Administration the wealthy made huge strides in getting government out of the way of them having it all.

They even have the most gullible now believing that wealth comes from wealth, not work.

They dream of Versailles, and many have achieved it.

Very few actually inherent wealth in America. Do many American's make money from money? Sure. Money is required to get any good idea off the ground.

As stated before, the wealthy gap as more or less been the same throughout history. So income inequality is only a problem depending upon it's causes. If we see an increase of inequality by people providing goods and services to others in the marketplace, this is not much of a problem. These people are creating wealth by creating value and therefore, making others better off. If something people are better at this than others, then this is mutually beneficial.

If this gap is due to crony capitalism, where those at the top are getting richer due to political connections, then we truly do have a problem.

I'm not concerned about inequality if that inequality is benefiting the less well off among us. The true regarding inequality is that people start off poor and then gradually become richer overtime. The main thing to discuss when talking about inequality is to discuss mobility.

 

[Foxfyre]

It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.

People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more. But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.

Income inequality always has been, and will be, claimed by the wealthy as an entitlement.

Clarify.

Remember, "let them eat cake"?

No.

In the mere 8 years of the Bush Administration the wealthy made huge strides in getting government out of the way of them having it all.

They even have the most gullible now believing that wealth comes from wealth, not work.

They dream of Versailles, and many have achieved it.

Very few actually inherent wealth in America. Do many American's make money from money? Sure. Money is required to get any good idea off the ground.

As stated before, the wealthy gap as more or less been the same throughout history. So income inequality is only a problem depending upon it's causes. If we see an increase of inequality by people providing goods and services to others in the marketplace, this is not much of a problem. These people are creating wealth by creating value and therefore, making others better off. If something people are better at this than others, then this is mutually beneficial.

If this gap is due to crony capitalism, where those at the top are getting richer due to political connections, then we truly do have a problem.

I'm not concerned about inequality if that inequality is benefiting the less well off among us. The true regarding inequality is that people start off poor and then gradually become richer overtime. The main thing to discuss when talking about inequality is to discuss mobility.

But there is far less mobility unless some have already achieved economic success and are in a position to offer others opportunity to achieve it. Everybody isn't cut out to run a business and some are happiest and prosper more if they provide their labor, creativity, expertise, experience in return for wages and benefits.

In many fields, small business has a much tougher time making a profit unless there are bigger businesses that need the product or services. Big corporations indirectly provide opportunities for untold thousands, perhaps millions, to make a living. We do not look to the poor to provide us opportunity to prosper but we look to those who have already prospered.

The system breaks down, however, when some assume it is their right to prosper whether they have earned that prosperity or not. And the system breaks down further when some think the wealthy should have all the responsibility for providing for everybody else without requiring the less wealthy to merit what they get.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Everyone should pay a fair share on income.

 

[boedicca]

There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business. Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business. Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.

Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing. American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time. But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.

The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it. Those who have capital parked overseas are not going to bring that money home when the huge threat of the 'rich paying their fair share' is likely to confiscate a huge percentage of it. And folks aren't about to risk the capital they have when the President continues to beat the drum of the 'rich paying more' as well as the uncertainties in the tax code due to massive programs like Obamacare et al.

So small business chooses to stay small instead of expanding and risking those higher taxes. And that results in fewer jobs and opportunity for others. Big business does just fine by focusing all its less profitable operations here and focusing on making big profits overseas where the tax structure and business environment is more friendly. That too makes for fewer jobs and less opportunity for all here at home.

You cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.

 

[RKMBrown]

Success has been declared evil in this country. Screw it. Who needs to kill themselves so the government can take half their labor? Screw it. I'm done working my ass off for the slackers. From here on I'll do only what I need to make a decent living for my family. I'll shelter hide all the income I can. Screw this killing myself for no reason bs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.

And, there is a fool born every minute.

Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?

ALERT:

Why do you think the wealthy have you eating out of the government is too big trough?

How about you just state your point rather than asking inane questions. Stop hinting.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business. Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.

Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing. American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time. But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.

The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it. Those who have capital parked overseas are not going to bring that money home when the huge threat of the 'rich paying their fair share' is likely to confiscate a huge percentage of it. And folks aren't about to risk the capital they have when the President continues to beat the drum of the 'rich paying more' as well as the uncertainties in the tax code due to massive programs like Obamacare et al.

So small business chooses to stay small instead of expanding and risking those higher taxes. And that results in fewer jobs and opportunity for others. Big business does just fine by focusing all its less profitable operations here and focusing on making big profits overseas where the tax structure and business environment is more friendly. That too makes for fewer jobs and less opportunity for all here at home.

You cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.

That is only half the picture though. The other half ilia has somewhat correct, business is not going to invest in the face of reduced demand. What they have wrong though is the idea that the government can print of some cash and then create artificial demand without consequences. Not only is that simply not going to work but it no longer fits into the economy where inflating the cost of goods through printing presses, higher taxes and forced higher wages chases that demand to other products produced in cheaper nations. The world economy can no longer be looked at as though money in our system stays there. It leaves and boosts the economy elsewhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?

ALERT:

Why do you think the wealthy have you eating out of the government is too big trough?

How about you just state your point rather than asking inane questions. Stop hinting.

Mamooth/Siagon/PMZ may or may not be cut from the same cloth, but they all debate via non sequitur questions. Thank you for not taking that bait because those who do help them drag the thread waaaaay off course.