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

[Darkwind]

In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and paid 36.73% of the income tax.

You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value? We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.

You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.

Now look at the topic of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth. You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.

 

[PMZ]

But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM. And the determination to make the rich unrich. And that's pretty important.

Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?

Strange notion. What redistribution would that be? Earning more is not redistribution. You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?

Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create.

The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people.

The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.

 

[Darkwind]

Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?

Strange notion. What redistribution would that be? Earning more is not redistribution. You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?

Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create.

The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people.

The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.

You are twisting capitalism with investment.

Wealth is the accumulation of some kind of effort. We usually term it as earnings. Creation is something entirely different, unless you wish to discuss business as a function of the creative process. At that point, you also will have to include into the equation the Return for the creation. Capitalism is NOT wealth redistribution, but an economic model in which the individual provides a good or service (This is called a value) in return for something else of value. Back in the day, people would come and trade an extra pig or sheep for enough grain to last them through the winter. This is capitalism at its most base form. Note that both parties received something of value. The farmer received meat, the shepherd received grain.

Today, people value other things. But we can continue along the food theme. A person takes risk to open a grocery store in a neighborhood that has none, is a capitalist. His risk is in the loans he takes, the uncertain future he places his family in, and the chance that he may fail and be in serious debt or become destitute. If he succeeds, he gains first a good living, then a great living, then he becomes wealthy.

In your rush to redistribute wealth via an entity that is thousands of times worse than a company, you would increase and increase and increase the burden on this business person who has taken all the risk and worked to build something from nothing. His or her plans may be to ensure that their children and their children never have to live hand to mouth ever again. In addition to all that, this person provides a paycheck to people who may not otherwise have a means to support themselves.

There is NO REDISTRIBUTION in this. Every company follows the same model. It may not be an individual, but it could be investors.

The point being, their vision, work, and effort is what brings prosperity to any nation. Prosperity is like the tide. It raises all boats. That is why you do not see people in America living in huts and drinking water buffalo piss to survive.

Now, the question posed to you is this.

What is their fair share? What dollar amount do they have to be penalized MORE than the rest of us, to be considered fair?

 

[PMZ]

You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value? We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.

You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.

Now look at the topic of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth. You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.

Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?

 

[Darkwind]

You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.

Now look at the topic of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth. You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.

Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?

It is not a matter of whether or not he would miss it. If it is wrong to do so, whether or not it harms the victim, it is still wrong to do so.

I hear people say all the time that they aren't hurt by that much tax so we must tax them more. That black Doctor (I can't remember his name) said it best at the breakfast with Obama.

"Why do you have to hurt him at all?"

So, get back to the topic. Economic security is not at issue here. Wealth confiscation by the greed of government is.

What constitutes a fair share? At what point does taking of wealth stop?

 

[Darkwind]

I'll check tomorrow. Its late and I need to hit it.

 

[Obamanation]

You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.

Now look at the topic of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth. You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.

Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?

So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?

Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...

Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".

 

[PMZ]

Strange notion. What redistribution would that be? Earning more is not redistribution. You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?

Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create.

The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people.

The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.

You are twisting capitalism with investment.

Wealth is the accumulation of some kind of effort. We usually term it as earnings. Creation is something entirely different, unless you wish to discuss business as a function of the creative process. At that point, you also will have to include into the equation the Return for the creation. Capitalism is NOT wealth redistribution, but an economic model in which the individual provides a good or service (This is called a value) in return for something else of value. Back in the day, people would come and trade an extra pig or sheep for enough grain to last them through the winter. This is capitalism at its most base form. Note that both parties received something of value. The farmer received meat, the shepherd received grain.

Today, people value other things. But we can continue along the food theme. A person takes risk to open a grocery store in a neighborhood that has none, is a capitalist. His risk is in the loans he takes, the uncertain future he places his family in, and the chance that he may fail and be in serious debt or become destitute. If he succeeds, he gains first a good living, then a great living, then he becomes wealthy.

In your rush to redistribute wealth via an entity that is thousands of times worse than a company, you would increase and increase and increase the burden on this business person who has taken all the risk and worked to build something from nothing. His or her plans may be to ensure that their children and their children never have to live hand to mouth ever again. In addition to all that, this person provides a paycheck to people who may not otherwise have a means to support themselves.

There is NO REDISTRIBUTION in this. Every company follows the same model. It may not be an individual, but it could be investors.

The point being, their vision, work, and effort is what brings prosperity to any nation. Prosperity is like the tide. It raises all boats. That is why you do not see people in America living in huts and drinking water buffalo piss to survive.

Now, the question posed to you is this.

What is their fair share? What dollar amount do they have to be penalized MORE than the rest of us, to be considered fair?

Money can come from inheritance, gambling, stealing, marriage, any number of things totally unrelated to wealth creation.

Work is the application of human skills to wealth creation. Saying that the ownership of the means creates wealth ignores the obvious. No factory produces a thing without skilled labor. Whoever owns that factory is no more than a landlord. He rents his facilities to people who make useful things by the use of it. The owner is entitled to fair rent.

If a factory owner feels that there is no advantage to business in the US, why would he build a factory here? If he does build a factory here, he should be charged for the advantages of being here.

The equation that we are dealing with is that the higher one goes in a modern corporation, the less he/she is rewarded for value added, and the more he/she is rewarded for being close to the rewarders. Wealth is power. Always.

We try to get around the dangers of capitalism, in order to get the rewards of capitalism, by regulating it, but imperfectly. We compensate for imperfect regulation by redistributing value created back to those who create it by progressive taxation. That's as "fair" as we can get.

If we ever get to the point where it's generally perceived as unfair, wealthy people will leave. Free market. At the moment, that's not happening. That signals that we've priced the country right. That doesn't mean that people don't whine, it means that they don't act.

 

[PMZ]

Now look at the topic of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth. You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.

Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?

So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?

Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...

Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".

You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.

Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.

 

[PMZ]

I'll check tomorrow. Its late and I need to hit it.

I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.

 

[Obamanation]

Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?

So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?

Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...

Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".

You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.

Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.

right... what alternative are you proposing?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll check tomorrow. Its late and I need to hit it.

I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.

You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.

 

[PMZ]

Now look at the topic of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes. Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth. You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.

Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?

It is not a matter of whether or not he would miss it. If it is wrong to do so, whether or not it harms the victim, it is still wrong to do so.

I hear people say all the time that they aren't hurt by that much tax so we must tax them more. That black Doctor (I can't remember his name) said it best at the breakfast with Obama.

"Why do you have to hurt him at all?"

So, get back to the topic. Economic security is not at issue here. Wealth confiscation by the greed of government is.

What constitutes a fair share? At what point does taking of wealth stop?

Right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder.

If you object to the taxes on wealth and income, you are in full control. Become poor. If you think that poor is advantageous, become one. It's easy.

Capitalism is based on the assumption that you won't choose poor. It applies to everyone, not just you.

You want more than you have now. The lament of lottery investors everywhere. If you are a capitalist, you'll work for it. If you are not, you are a whiner.

 

[PMZ]

I'll check tomorrow. Its late and I need to hit it.

I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.

You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.

What????

 

[PMZ]

So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?

Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...

Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".

You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.

Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.

right... what alternative are you proposing?

Capital gains should be taxed at the same or a greater rate than income from work.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.

You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.

What????

You heard me.

How do you speak of rights, when you are willing to bring those who prosper to their knees? What good is the right to prosper when you make it difficult to? Why is prosperity in the highest degree such a bad thing? Why is it bad when someone has the upper hand? You want to squeeze altruism from a man, just as you would water from a turnip. The man who owns the store who employs the the employees got there from the same hard work that he accused of not doing. He isn't "nothing more than a landlord" he worked for his living just as you did, and you begrudge him the right to prosper? So what if he prospers more than you? Nobody should be made prosper the same, but at their own pace. This type of economic communalism is disturbing. If you are poor, strive to be rich, if you are rich, strive to help the poor.

You hypocrite.

 

[Obamanation]

You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.

Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.

right... what alternative are you proposing?

Capital gains should be taxed at the same or a greater rate than income from work.

It's sounds like we agree. Just lower income tax to a flat 10% and put the gov't on a SERIOUS diet! Then we will have it licked, right??

 

[kaz]

Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world

The highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is "fairly low." Only to you comrade. We're just lucky you let us keep anything at all...

You're lucky we don't have regular show trials for corporate douchebags... but that's just me, man.

We should start with the "show trials" for the real criminals in this country, politicians. Your blinders that you believe the liars is absolutely required for your blind, ovine love of the Democratic party.

 

[kaz]

The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.

The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.

Who would possibly disagree with that. The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.

The people who wrote the Constitution did not think freedom came from the Constitution. You've made clear you have no interest in understanding what the Constitution is.

What's funny in a multiply ironic way is your use of the phrase "republican plutocracy."

Besides that you don't know what republican means

- the founders were republican
- the constitution is republican
- the founders were overwhelmingly the wealthy
- the founders set up a system to protect liberty for all <<<--- hint to the first point in the post
- it's actually democrats and liberalism who are destroying that.

What a post you wrote, outstanding!

 

[kaz]

You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.

I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.

If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host. So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...

Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.

I already addressed this. If anyone on my staff leaves, I can get a raft of resumes to replace them. The hardest to replace are my managers and senior staff by the way, the ones closes to being me. The rest are just an inconvenience to hire and train a replacement. If I leave, the jobs go away. People who do what I do, particularly with our belligerent government trying to trip us every step of the way, are few and far between.

So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government. Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people. If we go broke lose my pile.

But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.

And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter. Got it.