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

[ilia25]

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

The question is not whether or not improvements can be made. The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.

And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.

Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.

 

[RKMBrown]

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.

You two may be talking about different subjects. He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates. What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?

When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to. In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary. If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better. I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.

Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector. Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.

Business has not let the country down. Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work. That is a failing of government policy, not business.

And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads. Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?

And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.

I am absolutely the master of non-sequitur using your definition. Conservative dogma has brought both business and government down, so adhering to it is pathetically ignorant.

You are an aristocracy syncophant. Your choice. The longer that you preach that business can do no harm and government no good, your place in our politics is cemented in place. Irrelevant. It's just too bad that the country gave you the chance that we did. It's going to take several generations to repair the damage.

I now pronounce PMZ hopeless. He/she/it has absolutely no ability and/or motivation to read what is there, and it is simply too tedious to keep correcting him/her/it on stating that something is there that is not there.

 

[RKMBrown]

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

The question is not whether or not improvements can be made. The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.

And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.

Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.

>>> we cannot improve the market economy.
ROFL the sky is falling it won't work!! aahhaa lol

>>> Yes, we should provide training and education.
ROFL ... nothing "provided" will be appreciated. You want training and education? Earn it. All you are doing by "providing" stuff is creating a moocher class of folks who believe they are "entitled" to sit on the butt and collect $.

>>> the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents

So the market should not have bought any apple computers? So the market should not have bought tabasco sauce? What makes you think the market only sends money to the top few %? The market buys what the market wants to buy. The government stopped doing it's job to break up the monopolies. Instead the government decided to become the king maker and punish success that it disagrees with. Our government probably needs to be toppled that does not mean there is a problem with free markets and capitalism with a government making sure the strong do not choke out competition.

A progressive tax on personal income will not increase revenues or change the ratio of rich to poor. All it will do is bring about sheltering of assets and personal income avoidance. Instead of getting a million dollar salary they will get a company car and/or a company provided house. Stop that and they'll just find somewhere else to live.

The rich don't need personal income. You could charge a 90% personal income tax rate over a million dollars and get zero revenue.

 

[RKMBrown]

The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed. Perhaps the problem is the feds have exceeded their mandate, are spending too much, and refuse to live under the same laws that you and I are forced to live under?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Looks like PMZ scurried off. Too bad, I was looking for a fight.

 

[RKMBrown]

I know right? May you live in interesting times.. Political discussions would be boring if the lemmings all hit the bottom of the cliff at the same time.

 

[Redfish]

But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.

the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt. Debt must be serviced by raising taxes, then more debt is created to replace the spending power lost through taxation, then more taxes are needed. It never ends, thats why we are 17 trillion in debt and growing every day.

its called economic stupidity.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed. Perhaps the problem is the feds have exceeded their mandate, are spending too much, and refuse to live under the same laws that you and I are forced to live under?

No kidding. In today's WAPO:

When President Obama makes his first extended trip to sub-
Saharan Africa this month, the federal agencies charged with keeping him safe won’t be taking any chances.

Hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet*proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president’s airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The elaborate security provisions — which will cost the government tens of millions of dollars — are outlined in a confidential internal planning document obtained by The Washington Post. While the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past, the document offers an unusual glimpse into the colossal efforts to protect the U.S. commander in chief on trips abroad.
Document: Major resources needed for Obama Africa trip - The Washington Post

Now before the Obama apologists start caterwauling about "Bush did that too" or whatever, I am just asking. How many Americans' combined taxes paid over a lifetime will be consumed by this one trip? And in these tough economic times when the government is already running trillion dollar deficits, this will all be borrowed money that future generations will have to repay. And it will likely happen again and again and again.

Is this a judicious and necessary expenditure from the national treasury?

And this is a drop in the bucket from so many other things the government spends our money on. The pro big government people don't care.

Does anybody any more?

 

[ilia25]

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.

You two may be talking about different subjects. He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy

If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.

Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?

to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates

The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.

 

[ilia25]

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.

the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.

I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.

It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.

You two may be talking about different subjects. He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy

If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.

Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?

to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates

The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.

And who would that be? What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots? Why do you think you can't get a loan or join a group that get's a loan and uses robots to compete?

If you've never tried to start a business, yeah ok I can understand then how you don't think our regulatory system has gone overboard. Fines for not buying health insurance for your employ? Fines for generating too much CO2? .001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?

 

[RKMBrown]

You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.

the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.

I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.

It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.

And how should our government employees fix our income inequality? How about if we stop paying people to not work? Wouldn't that be a good way to increase income for the poor?

 

[ilia25]

The question is not whether or not improvements can be made. The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.

And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.

Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.

>>> we cannot improve the market economy.
ROFL the sky is falling it won't work!! aahhaa lol

>>> Yes, we should provide training and education.
ROFL ... nothing "provided" will be appreciated. You want training and education? Earn it. All you are doing by "providing" stuff is creating a moocher class of folks who believe they are "entitled" to sit on the butt and collect $.

>>> the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents

So the market should not have bought any apple computers?

We should let the market do the good things it does. And then correct the bad outcomes it creates.

What makes you think the market only sends money to the top few %?

I never said that it does. It's you reading comprehension issues.

The government stopped doing it's job to break up the monopolies.

What monopolies you are keep talking about?

Instead the government decided to become the king maker and punish success that it disagrees with

Nobody wants to punish anyone. It's about the fairness, not the punishment.

that does not mean there is a problem with free markets and capitalism with a government making sure the strong do not choke out competition.

Even with the government breaking monopolies and ensuring competition the income inequality won't go away.

A progressive tax on personal income will not increase revenues or change the ratio of rich to poor.

Yes it will. It's an income redistribution, it will make the poor richer and the rich poorer.

All it will do is bring about sheltering of assets and personal income avoidance.

I think you underestimate the power of IRS. That could be a very costly mistake.

Instead of getting a million dollar salary they will get a company car and/or a company provided house. Stop that and they'll just find somewhere else to live.

An inhabited island? Yes, that would be a place to make millions. It is so amusing you people on the right actually believe that "you built this"...

You could charge a 90% personal income tax rate over a million dollars and get zero revenue.

We'll see about that...

 

[ilia25]

the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.

I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.

It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.

And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?

Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.

How about if we stop paying people to not work?

We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.

 

[ilia25]

You two may be talking about different subjects. He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy

If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.

Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?

to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates

The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.

And who would that be? What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots?

I was talking about taxing the investment income too.

Why do you think you can't get a loan or join a group that get's a loan and uses robots to compete?

I can do that. But each and everyone can't.

If you've never tried to start a business, yeah ok I can understand then how you don't think our regulatory system has gone overboard. Fines for not buying health insurance for your employ? Fines for generating too much CO2?

Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.

.001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?

You've got a better estimation?

 

[RKMBrown]

Responses To: ilia25
>>> I never said that it does. It's you reading comprehension issues.

Don't be obtuse you said "the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents." I ask then what makes you think the market sends most of newly created wealth to the top few percents?

>>> What monopolies you are keep talking about?
Government monopoly on SS and Medicare, to name the two biggest ones. CEO hegemony over Executive pay in spite of objections of the owners (stockholders), Oil and Gas oligarchies, and DOD contracting shops to name a few that are popular to be broken up from the left.

>>> Nobody wants to punish anyone. It's about the fairness, not the punishment.
Taxation on income is punishment. You can call it fair but beating me into submission by taking my salary out of my kids mouths is not about fairness, it's about aggression by the mob.

>> Even with the government breaking monopolies and ensuring competition the income inequality won't go away.

So? Why should we live in a world where everyone makes the same money no matter what?


>> Income redistribution, it will make the poor richer and the rich poorer.

Yeah ok.. well at least you admit what you are.

>> I think you underestimate the power of IRS. That could be a very costly mistake.

I think you overestimate your paid henchmen.

 

[RKMBrown]

I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.

It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.

And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?

Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.

How about if we stop paying people to not work?

We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.

Really? You pull out the grandma, disabled vets, and hard working poor card as an excuse for people who don't work at all? What's next starving children?

There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you. Why do I owe you a job? I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?

No jobs? Bull. I've never been out of work for more than 5min. I'm fifty. My kids have never been out of work. The only people I've ever known who are out of work are the people we are paying to sit on their butt.

 

[g5000]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

How much is "fair share"...

How much you got?

There's your answer.

 

[RKMBrown]

If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.

Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?



The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.

And who would that be? What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots?

I was talking about taxing the investment income too.



I can do that. But each and everyone can't.

If you've never tried to start a business, yeah ok I can understand then how you don't think our regulatory system has gone overboard. Fines for not buying health insurance for your employ? Fines for generating too much CO2?

Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.

.001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?

You've got a better estimation?

We already tax investment income. Are you really asking investors stop investing? Why would I invest money if you are gonna take the returns? What is the incentive to investing if there can be no profits?

Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys? What incentive would there be for me to even sell hamburgers... nah I'd just close up shop, no point in the business if there is no profit. What part of the purpose of businesses is to make profit is confusing you?

Hard to say what the regulatory requirements does to brake the GDP. Put it this way, we can't even build a new nuclear power plant or refinery in this country. Our growth rate is at zero. When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..