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

[Uncensored2008]

The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.

The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.

Have you ever been to a swap meet, or a yard sale?

Were you able to function, you know, since government wasn't there to make your choices for you?

I understand that spewing talking points from the hate sites is a close to thought as you get, but seriously - you spew idiocy that reveals your lack of education and your lack of critical thinking skill.

Have you EVER read any scholarly work by an economist? Yes, you read what ThinkProgress gushes about Krugman, but have you EVER, even once, read the works of a legitimate economist?

Didn't think so.

 

[RKMBrown]

You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.

WOW just WOW

Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts. Wow. Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement. Wow, just wow!

Is that a poetry, or you are trying to put forth some argument?

Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left. Ok fine. I'll quit working today. I refuse to work tomorrow. I need money. Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries. I'll accept paypal.

Nobody is advocating such policies. The goal is to make people working the best they can.

I work to collect a paycheck. I donate or used to donate a portion of my money to charitable causes that help the truly needy and for hand ups. Since the government has decided to pay for 40million Americans to not work.. there is no need for charity any more. Our welfare system is not about helping people its about winning elections by buying votes with greenbacks. Our system does not make people work. Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

 

[RKMBrown]

But that isn't the point is it? The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.

What you say here is true. But it shouldn't be true. We should demand that it no longer be true.

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands. And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense. And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.

Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans. Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living. Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch. Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.

We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...

Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.

Yes you're right. And if you're into conspiracy theories that make sense, check in on Political Chic's thread "A Different Perspective." I think it is in politics. And ignore all the leftwing caterwauling about whose is blackest and who is to blame yadda yadda and really focus on the concept she laid out there in the OP. It is also pertinent for this thread. No way any dedicated Leftist is gonna touch that and they're doing their damndest to deflect from it.

But I'm not ready to stick a fork in it just yet. For everybody who thinks like Ilia there is still somebody who thinks like you. I am not ready to give up the great experiment the Founders left to us just yet. I have to believe that if reasonable people will just keep repeating reasonable things that are true, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to common sense and the amazing concepts of liberty, choice, options, and opportunities that a regulated free market allows.

I do believe we are the last generation with any chance to do that.

I'm not done either... just ticked at the ease with which said authoritarian and socialist leaning forces have been able to fundamentally change everything about this country from the shinning example of freedom and hope that it showed under Reagan... to the bad night mare of the beginnings of soft tyranny Bush and now Obama. I'm reminded of the Carter years. It's embarrassing.

 

[ilia25]

Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

econ 101 class one day one for the liberal fool: scarcity helps sets price in a free market too. If gold and diamonds where priced at the cost of mining, tomorrow the supply would instantly be sold and those who wanted to buy it could not!
If the market sets the price those who want it can buy it.

If soviet liberals set the prices too low the supply is immediately sold out and you wait in line all day for more, if they set it too high the supply sits on shelves as few can afford it. Soon its not worth it for a business to participate and 100 million or so stave to death like in the USSR and Red China.

Now the little liberal knows his ABC's too

 

[RKMBrown]

Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare? Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year? Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?

40Million Americans on welfare. The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare. These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?

The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.

It's really not that complex.

What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare? Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients. It's really not that complex.

Read Rules for Radicals. They are not even hiding what they are doing. The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society. Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

dear, when Clinton and Newt ended "welfare as we know it" by adding a work requirement 60% of the recipients instantly disappeared. Case closed!!!!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.

 

[Cecilie1200]

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.

Well, there's your problem. When they say "fair share", you think they mean "fair share of the burden", when what they ACTUALLY mean is "fair share of what they have and earn". The answer to that, of course, is "however much it takes for them to be as poor as I am."

 

[ilia25]

Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?

By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).

We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.

In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).

The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.

Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.

 

[ilia25]

If gold and diamonds where priced at the cost of mining, tomorrow the supply would instantly be sold and those who wanted to buy it could not!

Gold and diamonds ARE priced at the cost of mining, you idiot.. They are so expensive because the cost of mining them is high.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, all who think gold and diamonds are priced at the cost of mining, raise their hands.

Not very many. I think I only see one.

 

[PMZ]

Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits. And in so doing that, the business owner often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product. The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits. Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices. And that does not increase inflation.

The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee. In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer. But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer. Which do you think will be paid better? And how is that not fair?

When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system. And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.

Good points. However in the real world there are also monopolies. Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...

Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.

For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.

Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.

As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.

You see we don't live in a free market system. Not any more. Why? Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.

But that isn't the point is it? The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.

What you say here is true. But it shouldn't be true. We should demand that it no longer be true.

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands. And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense. And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.

The majority of citizens want what they voted for. The Supreme Court judged what they wanted to be Constitutional. A minority (of conservatives) wants to impose what has been imposed on them by their media choices on that majority.

The biggest gift from the founders was our ability to evolve into a democracy from the plutocracy which was the only choice open to them those many years ago.

The tyranny of conservatism was given a fair chance and failed spectacularly. They are now suffering their just rewards. That's how democracy works.

Voters learn.

 

[PMZ]

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

Depends on how much automation there is. The cost of Mexican hand woven rugs are hugely labor intensive as the materials are generally donated. The cost of labor for those done by feeding some kind of material into a machine that then produces the rug, much less so.

But nobody is worth more than the profit he or or she produces for his/her employer. That means that he/she needs to generate income for the business equal to his/her wages and all othe costs to the employer - benefits, taxes, insurance, etc. - plus a reasonable profit for the employer. The better he/she does that, the more valuable his/her labor becomes, and, if the employer is any kind of a business person, the more the worker will be paid.

"But nobody is worth more than the profit he or or she produces for his/her employer." No employer is worth more than the interest on the capital that they invested in providing the means. It's the workers that create the wealth. That's what work does. If the workers produce a superior value product they should be rewarded for their success.

Any legitimate business owner, and there aren't very many, knows that the quality of the workers using his means are what creates growth, which is the only measure of successful business. Everyone's success would be seriously hampered by not allowing the workers the financial benefit of their success. There are lots of means now sitting idle due to incompetent business people who didn't understand that, and we're unable to learn it.

 

[Cuyo]

Why nothing between 39 and 70?

I suspect that's where most of us libruls would actually pin the top bracket.

 

[PMZ]

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.

I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.

So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.

But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.

 

[PMZ]

The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.

The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.

Have you ever been to a swap meet, or a yard sale?

Were you able to function, you know, since government wasn't there to make your choices for you?

I understand that spewing talking points from the hate sites is a close to thought as you get, but seriously - you spew idiocy that reveals your lack of education and your lack of critical thinking skill.

Have you EVER read any scholarly work by an economist? Yes, you read what ThinkProgress gushes about Krugman, but have you EVER, even once, read the works of a legitimate economist?

Didn't think so.

John Maynard Keynes.

 

[PMZ]

WOW just WOW

Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts. Wow. Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement. Wow, just wow!

Is that a poetry, or you are trying to put forth some argument?

Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left. Ok fine. I'll quit working today. I refuse to work tomorrow. I need money. Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries. I'll accept paypal.

Nobody is advocating such policies. The goal is to make people working the best they can.

I work to collect a paycheck. I donate or used to donate a portion of my money to charitable causes that help the truly needy and for hand ups. Since the government has decided to pay for 40million Americans to not work.. there is no need for charity any more. Our welfare system is not about helping people its about winning elections by buying votes with greenbacks. Our system does not make people work. Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

It sounds like you know many people who choose poverty over work. Yet, capitalism says that the aversion to poverty is what motivates success. So I assume that you don't believe in capitalism. What do you believe in?

 

[PMZ]

Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans. Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living. Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch. Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.

We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...

Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.

Yes you're right. And if you're into conspiracy theories that make sense, check in on Political Chic's thread "A Different Perspective." I think it is in politics. And ignore all the leftwing caterwauling about whose is blackest and who is to blame yadda yadda and really focus on the concept she laid out there in the OP. It is also pertinent for this thread. No way any dedicated Leftist is gonna touch that and they're doing their damndest to deflect from it.

But I'm not ready to stick a fork in it just yet. For everybody who thinks like Ilia there is still somebody who thinks like you. I am not ready to give up the great experiment the Founders left to us just yet. I have to believe that if reasonable people will just keep repeating reasonable things that are true, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to common sense and the amazing concepts of liberty, choice, options, and opportunities that a regulated free market allows.

I do believe we are the last generation with any chance to do that.

I'm not done either... just ticked at the ease with which said authoritarian and socialist leaning forces have been able to fundamentally change everything about this country from the shinning example of freedom and hope that it showed under Reagan... to the bad night mare of the beginnings of soft tyranny Bush and now Obama. I'm reminded of the Carter years. It's embarrassing.

Sounds to me like you believe there are many better choices in the world today than the US. Can you give us a list?

 

[PMZ]

Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

econ 101 class one day one for the liberal fool: scarcity helps sets price in a free market too. If gold and diamonds where priced at the cost of mining, tomorrow the supply would instantly be sold and those who wanted to buy it could not!
If the market sets the price those who want it can buy it.

If soviet liberals set the prices too low the supply is immediately sold out and you wait in line all day for more, if they set it too high the supply sits on shelves as few can afford it. Soon its not worth it for a business to participate and 100 million or so stave to death like in the USSR and Red China.

Now the little liberal knows his ABC's too

Only perfect markets work as you describe. They require perfectly informed consumers. How about a list of markets in the US that you believe are perfect.