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

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Pretty much the liberal philosophy on prosperity. Thanks for the revelation, g5.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tag, your turn Templar I'm gonna go watch Superman solve all our problems.

 

[ilia25]

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.



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 you people insist that black and white are the only two colors in the Universe? Nobody is proposing a 100% tax. Investors would invest because after paying off the taxes they would still have enough to buy their yachts.

Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys?

Because they work as hard as you do.

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?

You either playing an idiot, or you really have no grasp on how the economy works. Health insurance is just another business expense. It will make your business unprofitable only if your competitors don't have to play by the same rules. Otherwise everyone would have to pass the cost on the consumers, and it will be OK, because people always need to eat.

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.

We ARE building new nuclear power plants.

Our growth rate is at zero.

It is not zero. It is slower than it could be if the Republicans would not block any attempt at stimulating the economic recovery. But it is enough for the economy to recover slowly on its own.

When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..

Why would it be higher? You keep making completely baseless assumptions about business not willing to invest because of regulations. The investment is low because the consumers are still hold off their spending, years after 2008 shock. But that's a temporary condition.

 

[ilia25]

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?

Who are those able people who do not work at all? They only exists in your imagination!

There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you.

There is -- otherwise why have it in the first place?

Why do I owe you a job?

You owe it to yourself. If you don't give a job to your employees, you won't have income and will be living on welfare.

I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?

I have not switched, and we need both -- safety net and income redistribution.

No jobs? Bull. I've never been out of work for more than 5min

I said "not enough decent paying jobs". Can't you read?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

We pay a LOT of people not to work. And we already have progressive taxes, strong safety nets, and supplemental income for the working poor. In fact about 50% of all Americans now receive some kind of government subsidy/benefit. More than has ever been the case in American history.

And yet, according to you and others, the income inequality is worse than ever.

Is it just possible that all that government 'contribution' is a significant reason for the income inequality? If not, why haven' we seen it start to decrease?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tag, your turn Templar I'm gonna go watch Superman solve all our problems.

I want to see that movie so bad, I'm jealous.

 

[ilia25]

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?

No -- you said "What makes you think the market only sends money to the top few %?". And I never said that.

But the market does send most of newly created wealth to the top few %:

The green line is productivity gains. Meaning we are creating more wealth per worker, but most of it goes to the to 1%, while the average income is stagnating.

>>> What monopolies you are keep talking about?
Government monopoly on SS and Medicare, to name the two biggest ones.

SS and Medicare keeps the wages low? How?!.

You either kidding, or crazy.

CEO hegemony over Executive pay in spite of objections of the owners (stockholders)

First, it's not a monopoly. Second, if owners would not want to pay their CEO, they would not. But they do, because it pays to have the best people running your company. Even if it is only chance to actually get the best.

Oil and Gas oligarchies, and DOD contracting shops to name a few that are popular to be broken up from the left

You throwing everything hoping it will stick, but the fact is that we do not have monopolies, and we have plenty of competition in every single sector -- from oil to high tech. It's not the porblem.

>>> Nobody wants to punish anyone. It's about the fairness, not the punishment.
Taxation on income is punishment.

No, it's fairness.

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.

That "mob" is the reason you have your salary. Or you still think you could have build your business alone on an inhabited island?

>> 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?

Because that would be fair. Because all human beings are equal and should be treated as such. Unfortunately we cannot eliminate inequality completely, because it would also remove any incentive to be good and productive member of society. But having inequality beyond that goal is harmful.

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

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

And where did I try to make an impression otherwise?

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

I think you overestimate your paid henchmen.

What are you talking about?

 

[ilia25]

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.

We pay a LOT of people not to work.

Again, those are disabled and elderly.

And we already have progressive taxes, strong safety nets, and supplemental income for the working poor.

Yes, but we should have more of that. Again, the goal is not to eliminate inequality, but to have it as little as possible w/o hurting the whole economy. And we can still go a long way in that direction.

In fact about 50% of all Americans now receive some kind of government subsidy/benefit. More than has ever been the case in American history.

Maybe that is a good thing?

And yet, according to you and others, the income inequality is worse than ever.

The income inequality is not affected by the government. That's how the market balances the labor market given the level of technological development. 50 year old technology made market creating a lot of good paying blue-collar jobs. Today's technology replaced them with robots, thus market creates low paying service jobs instead.

So the income inequality rises, yest we respond with less progressive taxes.

Is it just possible that all that government 'contribution' is a significant reason for the income inequality? If not, why haven' we seen it start to decrease?

If you can explain how is that possible, I'm all ears.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ilia, I'm not going to respond to a chopped up post like that. It destroys the context and becomes just one liner talking points by rote and pretty well misses the point being made. I'll give you props for sticking like a terrier to one of the most exreme leftwing propaganda point of view I've seen in awhile.

 

[PMZ]

Why are you lying about the views of others? Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out? Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.

I also believe that we should all be free. I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though. You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you? Is that your belief? Do you really believe that he only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free? Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.

So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?

Yes, I do not think the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor. Money does not make one free, in some respects money, and more particularly assets, make one less free due to the responsibilities and burden of ownership. Freedom to me is, in part, the ability to do what I want when I want to do it, so long as I do not harm others, and without being burdened by an oppressive government, rules and regulations.

Yes, I started out broke earning minimum wage bagging groceries and cutting lawns. Now, I have hundreds of inventions, have run my own company, and worked for a few companies as an Engineer. I still work but I do so for much less money than I did during the dot com boom years. For me the act of deciding to earn less money, meant freeing myself up to do more things, such as spending more time at home with my family.

Why did you work to become wealthy if you'd rather be poor?

 

[PMZ]

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.

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves. What you want to do is make it worse. Money does not come out of nowhere. Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul. Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for. Neither is incented to work.

Give me one example of government in the way and preventing people from making something of themselves.

 

[PMZ]

Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.

If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?

Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.

1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


>>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
You straw-man is wrong. I like my country. What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.

>>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?

>>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

I don't that's the point. Socialism, has never and will never work.

"1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?

I don't consider paying ones bills as being penalized.

 

[PMZ]

Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business. The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs. The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business. How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?

Business used to be smart enough to invest in productivity which allowed skilled workers to out produce cheap workers. Then people like you said let's give that money to CEOs instead as they are all a company needs to be successful.

What were you thinking????

Huh? On what planet do you live?

Can you name one Business that does not invest in productivity? Can you name one person or company on the planet that would pick cheap unskilled labor over skilled labor? What you are not understanding, likely, is that Americans do not have a patent on skill, nor do they have a patent on intelligence, nor do they have a patent on effort, nor do they have a patent on capitalism. If you want to talk about CEO pay your gonna have to talk to the owners of the company. I would agree that most CEOs get paid way too much money, and I certainly would not pay my CEO more than I think he's worth. That said I don't want the government setting salary caps. I do think the government is supposed to break up monopolies. If the CEOs have a monopoly on money based on some monopolizing of labor.. yeah break up the monopoly. For example, the owners should be allowed to have a say in what the pay is for their CEOs, such as by a shareholder vote.

The workers have as big a stake in the quality of the CEO as anybody. He/she should serve at their pleasure.

 

[PMZ]

Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.

1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


>>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
You straw-man is wrong. I like my country. What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.

>>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?

>>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

I don't that's the point. Socialism, has never and will never work.

"1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them? Got to go. Will be back.

You call those answers?

1) You insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income, because work creates wealth? What the hell does that mean? That's not even close to an answer. Are you trying to say you limit your income because you are lazy?

>>> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have.

Ok then this is something we can work from. Why do you want a progressive tax, and / or why do you feel income for CEOs is undeserved but your income is more deserved and/or more important than the rich guy's money so you should be rewarded with a lower tax rate. Or are you changing your mind and now agree we should move to a flat rate or zero income tax?

>>> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

Not true, I'm using YOUR definition of wealth, wealth being that which is created through labor. Can you answer this basic question, yes or no?

FYI if you want to debate, it'll be easier to make progress if you at least attempt to not make up lies about the people you are talking to. If progress is not your intention, well then I'll just assume you are just Trolling and move on.

You seem to think that the landlord of the factory and the CEO produce something of value. Take the workers out of the factory, leave the CEO there, and tell me what gets shipped and sold.

 

[PMZ]

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.

You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.

Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.

That's not rocket science.

 

[PMZ]

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.

I am proudly hopeless as a cult member. I am proudly hopeless when it comes to denying the truth. I'm proudly hopeless when it comes to denying science. I am proudly hopeless when people demand that I throw America under the bus. I am proudly hopeless when others tell me how and what to think.

Most of America used to be like me. A majority still are. The rest can be found in a chain of trunk to tail elephants all blindly following one of the most ignorant people to ever occupy space on the planet, Rush Limbaugh. Or Grover Norquist for God's sakes. Or Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, or John Boehner or Mitch MCConnell.

 

[PMZ]

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?

"The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed. "

What it means is that we are recovering from another Republican assault in the name of supply side economics.

 

[PMZ]

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.

You are saying that the theft of the country is complete and irreversible. The wealthy don't need to work. They own the government. They are above the law.

They own all of the wealth that the middle class has created in recent history and don't need the middle class any more.

Perhaps you are right. For sure you would be right if we had fallen for McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan.

But we didn't.

We still have to pay off the $17,000,000,000,000 that Bush's policies left us with. But,the wealthy who benefitted from those policies are on the hook too.

We can get back the country. We can fix business and continue to fix government. Because we haven't lost democracy or the Constitution yet.

 

[PMZ]

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

Anybody who picks a superhero avatar or wears superhero underwear is not fighting material. Only cartoon material.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ilia, I'm not going to respond to a chopped up post like that. It destroys the context and becomes just one liner talking points by rote and pretty well misses the point being made. I'll give you props for sticking like a terrier to one of the most exreme leftwing propaganda point of view I've seen in awhile.

Is what happens when all of an argument is based on beliefs and not fact, Fox. Bear that in mind