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

[RKMBrown]

If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl. So Congress borrows the money instead. That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
.

Congress (1) INFLATES THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows

.

(3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.

 

[RKMBrown]

We are hostage to $1.4 trillion of annual tax expenditures.

Everyone demands them. They demand them. Just like welfare queens.

Congress is paid good money to put that gigantic economic drain in the tax code. Lots of campaign cash. Because that is what everyone demands of them.

If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl. So Congress borrows the money instead. That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.

YOU put it there. Not the darkie with the ObamaPhone. YOU did it.

We could actually lower tax rates if you weren't such welfare queens.

Maybe we could do what Mexico does and
1. Not have welfare
2. Flood Mexico and Canada with our poor

I like it!!

 

[Contumacious]

If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl. So Congress borrows the money instead. That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
.

Congress (1) INFLATES THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows

.

(3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.

Exactly.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress (1) INFLATES THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows

.

(3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.

Exactly.

.

17Trillion/100million families = 170k in debt for each and every tax paying family in the country. Won't be long before the amount of debt we each owe is fairly significant.. hehe OMG we are so screwed.

 

[Contumacious]

(3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.

Exactly.

.

17Trillion/100million families = 170k in debt for each and every tax paying family in the country. Won't be long before the amount of debt we each owe is fairly significant.. hehe OMG we are so screwed.

Historical evidence shows that DC creates an "emergency" the scumbags in SCOTUS allow the executive branch to USURP powers in order to address the so-call emergency- those powers are never rescinded ; they create new emergencies and the vicious cycle never ends.

.

 

[rdean]

The tax rate is the lowest in 60 years.

It's not that Republicans want "free stuff", which they do, but they want to live for free in this county. Freedom costs money. If they don't want to pay to support this country, they should leave. Go someplace they could live for free without paying to support the country they live in.

 

[Rozman]

And it drives Liberals nuts....
All that lost revenue they don't have to spend.

 

[Rozman]

It just makes them feel so.....

Incomplete...

 

[FA_Q2]

You two are very naive.

You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?

Taxing, spending, campaign finance, and quid-pro quo are four completely different issues. Pretending none can be solved without solving all of them at the same time is just silly. But if you want to do that go ahead and start shooting cause you'll need a revolution to fix everything at the same time.

They can all be solved at the same time. It is very simple: Ban all tax expenditures. If you remove the incentive to give a Congressman campaign cash, that tit will dry right up. If a Congressman can't add a deduction/credit/subsidy/loophole/boondoggle to the tax code, there is no point paying him to do so.

Presto, you just solved campaign finance without having to write yet another failed campaign finance reform legislation.

No exceptions. Ban ALL tax expenditures.

Now watch the pseudo-welfare queens come crawling out of the woodwork to defend their sacred cows.

It's a seriously fucked up system that has people earning identical incomes paying different amounts of taxes, but that is exactly what we have.

That is exactly why any real tax reform would require an amendment that banned changes for special interests.

I don’t like a sales tax. Anything like that is inherently complex as hell. Personally I think a flat tax on ALL income is the way to go with zero possible deductions. There is simply no way to jimmy that system and the increase/decrease of tax rates effect ALL equally. It halts class warfare. Most of all, removing all ‘adjustments’ in the code removes MASSIVE amounts of power from congress to play to their buddies and interests with special favors.

For all your railing against the ‘welfare queens’ and claiming that people were going to come out to defend their sacred cows, it appears that you were flat out wrong. No one here seems to be defending their cow. Most here that advocate for fair taxes are quite aware of the kickbacks and absolutely want them eliminated.

 

[PMZ]

>> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

How? You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money. Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.

>> Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing. What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?

I have no idea what your first point is about.

My position is the same one that I've made several times.

Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable. Aristocracy is always temporary.

Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No? If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources? Why not? If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question. Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?

Taxes aren't good or bad. They are the cost of living in a well run country.

Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.

One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.

You with me so far?

 

[PMZ]

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.

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

Fair is not objective.

Tax systems have many objectives.

One would be to promote the common good.

For instance a functional wealth distribution.

So your position, ''two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes'' might satisfy one objective, to be equitable, but doesn't even address other objectives, like how those household taxes compare to those with higher or lower incomes for example.

 

[PMZ]

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.

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.

I assume that you mean by this, there is no fair income tax system.
Fair being as subjective as you can get, I'd agree.

 

[PMZ]

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.

Well said.

Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.

AKA, the FairTax.

Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse, and really offers no advantages over the present system.

 

[PMZ]

What a bunch of sad sack ideas.

Everybody hates welfare queens while loving the idea of gaming the same system to their own advantage.

And, I loved the idea of let's emulate Mexico. Why stop there? Let's try for Somalia.

All of this is exactly why the Republican Party is doomed. They hate this country and do not make the slightest pretense even of doing what's best for the country. A bunch of self centered yahoos focused only on me, me, me.

Discusting.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have no idea what your first point is about.

My position is the same one that I've made several times.

Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable. Aristocracy is always temporary.

Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No? If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources? Why not? If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question. Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?

Taxes aren't good or bad. They are the cost of living in a well run country.

Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.

One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.

You with me so far?

No. Please show me where managing wealth distribution is a factor in designing taxation systems. I thought it was for the cost of living in a well run country. Now you say it's the cost for redistributing money from people who have it to people who don't have it. Which is it? How do you measure extreme wealth distribution dysfunction? If I do absolutely NOTHING why do I deserve redistribution checks? On what basis do I deserve to get money for nothing? Isn't that extreme dysfunction?

It seems to me that you have two goals. One punish people with money and two accuse anyone who resists of being an anarchist. Isn't it true that you are being disingenuous with regard to your true goals for redistributing money?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.

Well said.

Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.

AKA, the FairTax.

Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse, and really offers no advantages over the present system.

That's because you don't want to work any more. You just want to sit back and collect.

 

[PMZ]

Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No? If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources? Why not? If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question. Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?

Taxes aren't good or bad. They are the cost of living in a well run country.

Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.

One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.

You with me so far?

No. Please show me where managing wealth distribution is a factor in designing taxation systems. I thought it was for the cost of living in a well run country. Now you say it's the cost for redistributing money from people who have it to people who don't have it. Which is it? How do you measure extreme wealth distribution dysfunction? If I do absolutely NOTHING why do I deserve redistribution checks? On what basis do I deserve to get money for nothing? Isn't that extreme dysfunction?

It seems to me that you have two goals. One punish people with money and two accuse anyone who resists of being an anarchist. Isn't it true that you are being disingenuous with regard to your true goals for redistributing money?

More than one objective seems to be beyond you.

 

[PMZ]

Well said.

Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.

AKA, the FairTax.

Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse, and really offers no advantages over the present system.

That's because you don't want to work any more. You just want to sit back and collect.

You've lost it old man.

 

[PMZ]

From Wikipedia.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[10]

After the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%.[9][10][11]

 

[RKMBrown]

Taxes aren't good or bad. They are the cost of living in a well run country.

Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.

One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.

You with me so far?

No. Please show me where managing wealth distribution is a factor in designing taxation systems. I thought it was for the cost of living in a well run country. Now you say it's the cost for redistributing money from people who have it to people who don't have it. Which is it? How do you measure extreme wealth distribution dysfunction? If I do absolutely NOTHING why do I deserve redistribution checks? On what basis do I deserve to get money for nothing? Isn't that extreme dysfunction?

It seems to me that you have two goals. One punish people with money and two accuse anyone who resists of being an anarchist. Isn't it true that you are being disingenuous with regard to your true goals for redistributing money?

More than one objective seems to be beyond you.

The objectives are contradictory. That is what is beyond you and all other democrats like yourself.

If you want to punish CEOs that use their oligopoly on board rooms, then punish CEOs. If you want to punish investors, I have to ask, WTF is wrong with you? If you want to punish workers again.. WTF is wrong with you? Reward hard work by making taxes flat not progressive. Reward work by eliminating hand-outs. This is not rocket science. People will flock to that which is rewarded, and shy away from that which does not put food on the table.

Look at the EBT crap that occurred over the weekend. What does this tell you? Are you capable of learning?