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

[PMZ]

Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.

The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?

What a thug.

Where one choses to live is, in today's world, mostly a free choice. Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives, and we chose this one.

It's no less free a market than most, and we chose America.

Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?

I love it. "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave! You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me! Now shut up and get back to work!"

That's leftists for you.

I see that you have nothing to refute my position.

You suffer from the inability to accept accountability for your actions and decisions. That never leads to anything good or even useful.

 

[PMZ]

Where one choses to live is, in today's world, mostly a free choice. Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives, and we chose this one.

It's no less free a market than most, and we chose America.

Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?

I love it. "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave! You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me! Now shut up and get back to work!"

That's leftists for you.

On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil". And one of the lines was:

"If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."

Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself. And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.

You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more, and those with less deserve less.

Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?

It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.

 

[PMZ]

I love it. "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave! You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me! Now shut up and get back to work!"

That's leftists for you.

On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil". And one of the lines was:

"If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."

Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself. And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.

My dear, in order to have an ethical problem with something, one must first have ethics.

Not a long line of people wanting to learn ethics from Marie Antoinette.

 

[Foxfyre]

I love it. "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave! You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me! Now shut up and get back to work!"

That's leftists for you.

On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil". And one of the lines was:

"If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."

Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself. And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.

You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more, and those with less deserve less.

Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?

It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.

Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.

And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.

To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.

To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.

 

[PMZ]

On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil". And one of the lines was:

"If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."

Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself. And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.

You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more, and those with less deserve less.

Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?

It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.

Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.

And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.

To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.

To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.

Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?

 

[Foxfyre]

You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more, and those with less deserve less.

Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?

It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.

Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.

And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.

To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.

To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.

Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?

Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem. I made no such assumption.

 

[PMZ]

Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.

And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.

To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.

To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.

Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?

Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem. I made no such assumption.

Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.

Be that as it may though.

'' Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''

'' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.

Who disagrees with this?

Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.

 

[PMZ]

I wonder where conservatives get their belief that hard work isn't table stakes for life and that they're underpaid for doing what workers do. Work. It's hard to understand where all of the whining comes from. If they wanted to be hard responsible workers they can just do it.

It seems like the basis for their whining must be that they want an easier life more like their make believe scapegoat enemy, the poor.

The poor? Who wants to be one of those? And if someone does, it's not hard to do.

Well, but, it turns out to be very hard to do. Long hours of low paid hard work with nothing to show for it.

All in all people in America live better, but are whiner than, anyone else in history.

If that's the nature of humanity, God help us.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?

Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem. I made no such assumption.

Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.

Be that as it may though.

'' Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''

'' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.

Who disagrees with this?

Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.

Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally? And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.

All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more. The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it. The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.

Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here have suggested that most of the poor should do more to improve their own situations or that most of the rich have earned and therefore deserve what they have?

 

[PMZ]

Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem. I made no such assumption.

Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.

Be that as it may though.

'' Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''

'' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.

Who disagrees with this?

Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.

Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally? And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.

All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more. The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it. The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.

Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here in which you or they have denied that or have said anything different about it?

You keep switching subjects. Let's pick one and stick to it.

Pay for work done.

The relative merits of wealth, poverty and comfortable living.

US tax policy.

US wealth distribution.

US work ethic.

US compared to other current countries as alternative places to reside.

Any other suggestions?

 

[PMZ]

How about the fundamentals of liberal and conservative cultures.

 

[PMZ]

The Rise and fall of the GOP?

 

[PMZ]

Why whining will never replace problem solving?

 

[PMZ]

How the rich become rich and the poor remain poor?

 

[Foxfyre]

Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.

Be that as it may though.

'' Yes. Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''

'' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.

Who disagrees with this?

Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.

Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally? And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.

All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more. The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it. The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.

Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here in which you or they have denied that or have said anything different about it?

You keep switching subjects. Let's pick one and stick to it.

Pay for work done.

The relative merits of wealth, poverty and comfortable living.

US tax policy.

US wealth distribution.

US work ethic.

US compared to other current countries as alternative places to reside.

Any other suggestions?

You are the one who seems to have difficulty focusing here.

I am focused on the concept that taking from the rich does not help the poor, in fact hurts the poor.

The liberal mantra, however, is that the rich do not deserve what they have and the poor deserve more of what the rich has simply because they do not have it.

The liberals leave all concepts of merit, earning what you get, and personal responsibility out of it. It comes down to an emotional concept--the rich have money and the poor don't, therefore the rich should give up some of their money so the poor can have more. The problem with that is, generosity, compassion, ethical values are all based on the liberal giving somebody else's money for the cause. It is never seen as their personal responsibility.

Which is no doubt why Nancy Pelosi, as government workers across the board were taking a cut in hours and pay due to the sequester, said:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs.

"I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel.

Read more: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

P.S. Pelosi et al saw to it that members of Congress and their staffs took no financial hit whatsoever.

But the (other rich) - not millionaire members of Congress - should give more so the poor will have more.

The strench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[zeke]

We should all be worried about the debt in the face of some monstrous expenses that we have coming up in the fields of energy and extreme weather recovery and sea level rise mitigation.

There is only one solution and that is growing the economy, a difficult achievement made more so by Congressional Republicans dedicated to party over country.

Let's make things easier and replace them.

Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about doing these things and be elected.

Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.

I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people. If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist, it's time to listen and figure out why.

That’s the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.

I was talking about an austerity program combined with income increases as a means to balance our yearly budget and pay something on our debt.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about?

 

[Foxfyre]

Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about doing these things and be elected.

Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.

I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people. If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist, it's time to listen and figure out why.

That’s the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.

I was talking about an austerity program combined with income increases as a means to balance our yearly budget and pay something on our debt.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about?

You have to excuse PMZ. He either a) has a reading comprehension dysfunction problem or b) has a real problem with focus or c) is trained in the Alinsky model in how to obfusicate, confuse, and otherwise derail any discussion of a topic the current radical liberals in power do not wish to have discussed.

A lot of people on this thread did appreciate a topic on the concept of taxes and what a fair share of taxes actually looks like, however, and I keep peeking back in to see if anybody is actually still discussing that.

 

[billyerock1991]

as much as it takes

 

[Foxfyre]

as much as it takes

As much as it take for what?

For Congress to appropriate what is essential for Congress to do?

For Congress to appropriate what the left deems important for Congress to do?

For Congress to appropriate whatever it wants to do?

These are three different things.

 

[PMZ]

Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally? And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.

All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more. The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it. The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.

Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here in which you or they have denied that or have said anything different about it?

You keep switching subjects. Let's pick one and stick to it.

Pay for work done.

The relative merits of wealth, poverty and comfortable living.

US tax policy.

US wealth distribution.

US work ethic.

US compared to other current countries as alternative places to reside.

Any other suggestions?

You are the one who seems to have difficulty focusing here.

I am focused on the concept that taking from the rich does not help the poor, in fact hurts the poor.

The liberal mantra, however, is that the rich do not deserve what they have and the poor deserve more of what the rich has simply because they do not have it.

The liberals leave all concepts of merit, earning what you get, and personal responsibility out of it. It comes down to an emotional concept--the rich have money and the poor don't, therefore the rich should give up some of their money so the poor can have more. The problem with that is, generosity, compassion, ethical values are all based on the liberal giving somebody else's money for the cause. It is never seen as their personal responsibility.

Which is no doubt why Nancy Pelosi, as government workers across the board were taking a cut in hours and pay due to the sequester, said:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs.

"I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel.

Read more: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

P.S. Pelosi et al saw to it that members of Congress and their staffs took no financial hit whatsoever.

But the (other rich) - not millionaire members of Congress - should give more so the poor will have more.

The strench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

You need to use more accurate words. They all have meaning you know.

You've picked the topic of US tax policy.

The condition of the country is something that we all benefit from, not equally though. It costs what it costs just as any home or business does. Whiney people complain about paying for benefits that are accrued to others more than themselves but nobody has ever figured out how to price things more precisely without creating huge buerocracy. Just like every business, pricing is simplified.

In the end, where we each decide to live is a complex financial decision. If our pricing got too far away from value received, the indicator would be people moving to other places. It's not happening in any real numbers so we must be competitively priced at all levels of income.

There has never been a society with a Gini coefficient of 1.00, perfectly level wealth distribution. Mostly because there are always those who consider themselves worth more than average, and want that to be demonstrable. So they do whatever they have to in order to achieve that.

Capitalism tends to use that motivational fact to the purpose of promoting the growth of means of production with the assumption that aggressive owners of means will create market and therefore economic growth.

Those means are useless without workers to create the wealth that allows the owners of the means to get a return on their investment if they are aggressive and able to manage a market for the tangible wealth that the workers create.

Tax policy is the system to collect adequate revenue to fund a competitive country.

IMO the use of the abstract undefinable concept of fair is of no use in defining tax pick. Workable is more useful.

It also has to take into account the wealth distribution that the economic system produces.

In the US, today, we believe in abundant capitalism which uses extreme wealth distribution to motivate what we hope will be extreme economic growth.

In the past however the better economic growth achieved then was driven by much more moderate levels of wealth distribution.

A logical conclusion from the evidence would be that there is a degree of wealth distribution that is optimum gorgeous growth, and we have surpassed it.

So, we have so much money needed to maintain a country that is a competitive place to live at all levels of wealth. We have a wealth distribution that appears too extreme to achieve maximum growth. We have loads of debt to pay off and substantial one time energy related costs facing us. We have shipped millions of well paying careers overseas and moved the labor expenses saved to highly compensated executives and shareholders.

What tax policy would you recommend?