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

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Oh there you are, do you dare challenge me? Or will you put up quips like that in place of a nonexistent argument? Lets go, tough guy!

 

[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.

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.

The government doesn't create debt. Bush could have paid it off. Republican supply side economics creates debt.

The government does not create jobs. Business creates jobs when they are run by competent managers capable of achieving growth.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Capitalism works because it distributes wealth up. If unchecked it would lead to extreme inequality and societal instability. Societal stability is the biggest responsibility government has.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

He frankly became unlistenable when he said, "Right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You've never read the Constitution, Jake. You have no clue what is in it.

But he knows that sheepskin feels SO SOFT when he wipes his ass with it.

 

[PMZ]

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?

"And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?"

Progressive income tax and taxation of income from wealth at rates equal or greater than income from work.

 

[PMZ]

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.

So, in your opinion, there are jobs out there right now waiting to employ every American?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

1. The government doesn't create debt. Bush could have paid it off. Republican supply side economics creates debt.

The government does not create jobs. Business creates jobs when they are run by competent managers capable of achieving growth.

1. That is patently false. Where does the debt come from? That's funny you have to reach all the way back to Reagan for an argument. When Reagen tripled the deficit, that was only 1 trillion IN EIGHT YEARS. When Obama doubled the deficit, the amount IS NEARLY FIVE TIMES THAT!

2. Ever seen the public sector lately?

 

[PMZ]

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 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..

What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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



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.

So, in your opinion, there are jobs out there right now waiting to employ every American?

Enough to drop the unemployment rate under 5% yes. As of the the last business day in April, there were 3.8 million job openings in America.

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.



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..

What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?

Uhh, if you keep the government of a small business, it will grow without the government's help. And since when is it government's job to determine the growth rate of a business anyway? This class warfare argument, so thinly veiled, is preposterous. You get paid to succeed, not to fail.

 

[PMZ]

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?

There is a term that some of us have heard before. Baby boomers. A large group of post war population now retiring. For their whole careers they have been contributing to SS and Medicare and are now claiming what they have been saving for.

Are you saying that their savings should be confiscated and given to the wealthy in the form of Republican supply side wealth redistribution tax cuts instead?

 

[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.

Oh there you are, do you dare challenge me? Or will you put up quips like that in place of a nonexistent argument? Lets go, tough guy!

What are you, 10 or 11 years old?

I only deal in the real world. Go take on Mighty Mouse or Wonder Woman.

 

[PMZ]

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.

1. The government doesn't create debt. Bush could have paid it off. Republican supply side economics creates debt.

The government does not create jobs. Business creates jobs when they are run by competent managers capable of achieving growth.

1. That is patently false. Where does the debt come from? That's funny you have to reach all the way back to Reagan for an argument. When Reagen tripled the deficit, that was only 1 trillion IN EIGHT YEARS. When Obama doubled the deficit, the amount IS NEARLY FIVE TIMES THAT!

2. Ever seen the public sector lately?

1. You be right on if dates caused debt. Unfortunately, policies cause debt. Holy wars and wealth distribution tax cuts for the wealthy and unsupervised Wall St and near zero interest rates feeding the housing boom and Great Recessions to be recovered from. Bush could have had us debt free by continuing Clintonomics. He chose to do the opposite. All $17,000,000,000,000 is attributable to what he started and the cost of recovering from the damages.

2. If by the public sector you mean recovering all of the American jobs given away by incompetent business leaders, yes, I've seen the public sector. Shameful.

 

[PMZ]

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.

So, in your opinion, there are jobs out there right now waiting to employ every American?

Enough to drop the unemployment rate under 5% yes. As of the the last business day in April, there were 3.8 million job openings in America.

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

Read your reference. Those openings are just over job losses. The net is very small. Business executives have no incentive to grow from Wall St. Wall St rewards shrinking not growing.

 

[PMZ]

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..

What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?

Uhh, if you keep the government of a small business, it will grow without the government's help. And since when is it government's job to determine the growth rate of a business anyway? This class warfare argument, so thinly veiled, is preposterous. You get paid to succeed, not to fail.

Business used to understand that growth defined success. Then Wall St suggested that they'd pay more for shrinkage. Incredibly stupid. Who gets the rewards? Stock brokers encouraging turnover. Who loses? Every American.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Oh there you are, do you dare challenge me? Or will you put up quips like that in place of a nonexistent argument? Lets go, tough guy!

What are you, 10 or 11 years old?

I only deal in the real world. Go take on Mighty Mouse or Wonder Woman.

RUN! RUN AWAY! Run away and never return, coward!

 

[TemplarKormac]

What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?

Uhh, if you keep the government of a small business, it will grow without the government's help. And since when is it government's job to determine the growth rate of a business anyway? This class warfare argument, so thinly veiled, is preposterous. You get paid to succeed, not to fail.

Business used to understand that growth defined success. Then Wall St suggested that they'd pay more for shrinkage. Incredibly stupid. Who gets the rewards? Stock brokers encouraging turnover. Who loses? Every American.

Everyone loses when you spout such biased and unproven propaganda. Be quiet. Rich people are eeeevil I say, EEEEEVIILLLL!!!

 

[PMZ]

Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills.

Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work.

Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?

But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage.

Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible.

At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race.

All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum.

So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste.

It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.

 

[PMZ]

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!

He frankly became unlistenable when he said, "Right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder."

It's clear that people like you believe that right is in your eye. People who disagree with you are wrong. That's ego talking.