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

[PMZ]

I don't understand why there are any conservatives living in the US. You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.

A country like........ like..........like....... Oh, maybe that's the problem. They're already getting the best deal available.

 

[RKMBrown]

And your point is? Did you read the article you linked?

"Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues. if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.

But the money clause in your linked article is this:



My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government. "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.

In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.

That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.

Not so much any more.

Translation: Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.

And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us. What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money. Obama is the perfect example of these scum. Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum. The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet. Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.

 

[PMZ]

In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.

That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.

Not so much any more.

Translation: Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.

And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us. What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money. Obama is the perfect example of these scum. Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum. The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet. Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.

You seem like a pretty sick guy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Translation: Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.

And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us. What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money. Obama is the perfect example of these scum. Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum. The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet. Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.

You seem like a pretty sick guy.

Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.

 

[PMZ]

And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us. What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money. Obama is the perfect example of these scum. Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum. The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet. Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.

You seem like a pretty sick guy.

Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.

Me too. The difference is that I'm winning.

 

[RKMBrown]

You seem like a pretty sick guy.

Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.

Me too. The difference is that I'm winning.

Id much rather loose and hold my head high, than admit like you just did, that you are sucking the blood of your country. While I may give you an ounce of cred for admitting it. I don't think winning means what you think it means.

 

[bripat9643]

You seem like a pretty sick guy.

Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.

Me too. The difference is that I'm winning.

So? You're still a scumbag sucking the blood out of this country. If you win, that only means that soon you'll have nothing but a dead carcass to feed on.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't understand why there are any conservatives living in the US. You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.

A country like........ like..........like....... Oh, maybe that's the problem. They're already getting the best deal available.

I don’t understand why there are any liberals in the US. You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.

A country like England, France or a much closer example like Greece. One really does wonder. We established why conservatives stick around but liberals actually do have alternative nations that are FAR closer to their ideal place to live. Places that have things like crushing tax codes, ‘free’ healthcare and all the other programs that make such places liberal utopias.

 

[PMZ]

Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.

Me too. The difference is that I'm winning.

Id much rather loose and hold my head high, than admit like you just did, that you are sucking the blood of your country. While I may give you an ounce of cred for admitting it. I don't think winning means what you think it means.

I've been an American for 71 years, a Republican for most of them. I believe that for many of those years the Republican, business centered perspective, and the Democrat focus on people, produced a useful tension, and the statesmanship evident in Congress gave a centrist balance that led to the most functional governments and countries the world has seen.

Three things led to us breaking that functionality.

When the dixiecrats became Republican the GOP actually paid attention to their unamericanism.

24/7/365 Republican propaganda media escaped the old political campaign advertising rules by pretending to be news media, and built an effective extremist cult from the already extreme dixiecrat base.

The GOP became the party of plutocracy rather than business.

America's downfall followed.

Her restoration is critical to a successful future.

That's what I play the role that I can in bringing about.

I believe that we are making progress on divorcing the dixiecrats from the wealthy so that each will have to stand on its minority own.

Then America will recover.

 

[PMZ]

I don't understand why there are any conservatives living in the US. You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.

A country like........ like..........like....... Oh, maybe that's the problem. They're already getting the best deal available.

I don’t understand why there are any liberals in the US. You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.

A country like England, France or a much closer example like Greece. One really does wonder. We established why conservatives stick around but liberals actually do have alternative nations that are FAR closer to their ideal place to live. Places that have things like crushing tax codes, ‘free’ healthcare and all the other programs that make such places liberal utopias.

Pay attention to where the whining comes from, and where solutions come from. Pay attention to the trajectory of the country under conservative Bush and under liberal Obama. Get your head out of Fox's ass, then come and talk to us.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know what? The topic of this thread is what is a fair share of taxes? Most of the conservatives have been arguing that.

Most of the liberals on the thread are now becoming ever more stridently crazy, personally insulting, dishonest, and frantic in their effort to avoid a discussion of what is a fair share of taxes. It is what liberals do instead of discussing concepts or topics. No matter what the subject, liberals seem unable to discuss it but will invariably sooner or later focus on targets to accuse, dmonize, criticize, or blame.

Why is that?

Given any better argument, I have to believe it is because liberals have no clue why they hold the strange views of things that they do, and have nothing with which to defend those views.

 

[PMZ]

You know what? The topic of this thread is what is a fair share of taxes? Most of the conservatives have been arguing that.

Most of the liberals on the thread are now becoming ever more stridently crazy, personally insulting, dishonest, and frantic in their effort to avoid a discussion of what is a fair share of taxes. It is what liberals do instead of discussing concepts or topics. No matter what the subject, liberals seem unable to discuss it but will invariably sooner or later focus on targets to accuse, dmonize, criticize, or blame.

Why is that?

Given any better argument, I have to believe it is because liberals have no clue why they hold the strange views of things that they do, and have nothing with which to defend those views.

The question, what is anyone's fair share of taxes is unanswerable and therefore nonsensical because 'fair' is probably the most subjective word in the English language.

Conservatives consider the question because it obscures their completely self serving perspective. They want other people to pay more of their taxes. They feel entitled to that outcome.

We can each make a long list of things that we wish were cheaper. Cars, gasoline, food, housing, health care, health care insurance, education, clothing, cable, cell phones, the list is endless.

But, in the end, it's all, and only, whining.

Those of us favored by life with enough income to live comfortably always have to tailor our tastes to our income and make choices.

Conservatives apparently find that annoying and feel entitled to easier lives at the expense of other people.

'Fair' makes that entitlement sound a little less self serving, and a little more noble but that's an illusion like most of conservatism is.

My response to the whining is, if you can't afford the lifestyle that you want, find ways to make more money.

 

[Peterf]

I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never'). I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.

A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether. What could be more simple?

The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right. But if you are good little proles the state will give you some. And that such a system is the acme of fairness I do not entirely agree with this.

 

[Foxfyre]

I rest my case. PMZ, like most liberals, is incapable of arguing the concept. His entire previous post is ad hominem, deflection from the topic, and personal attack except for the one brief concept: the question of what is a 'fair share' is unanswerable. But then he fails to focus on that and storms into a screed on evil conservatives.

What ever happened to the William Raspberry's, the Camille Paglia's, the Michael Kinsley's of the liberal world--people who could focus on a principle and argue passionately for it? Has liberalism finally so squelched the ability to focus and think critically that nobody can actually discuss a topic any more?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made: the fact that 'fair' is subjective. And indeed, it can be.

But that was the whole point of the OP. Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.

For me a 'fair share' is":
1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.

2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.

3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

So that's it in a nutshell. I challenge all to critique the concept. (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)

 

[PMZ]

I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never'). I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.

A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether. What could be more simple?

The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right. But if you are good little proles the state will give you some. And that such a system is the acme of fairness I do not entirely agree with this.

''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''

Actually, this not the liberal position at all. It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is. Big difference.

The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services. Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained, and everything else.

Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to, make more money regardless of the cost to others, in a market without competition. It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.

So, the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services), are owned by all of us, and the labor is employed by our elected representatives. At least it is in a democracy. So, if they don't do an adequate job, we fire them.

Tangible wealth production costs money. Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand, product by product mostly. Products in non-competitive markets are bundled, and paid for through taxes.

The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well, suited to the 'market', which, in the case of government, is the country governed.

If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems, that's an interesting topic.

If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes, it's not useful at all.

 

[PMZ]

I rest my case. PMZ, like most liberals, is incapable of arguing the concept. His entire previous post is ad hominem, deflection from the topic, and personal attack except for the one brief concept: the question of what is a 'fair share' is unanswerable. But then he fails to focus on that and storms into a screed on evil conservatives.

What ever happened to the William Raspberry's, the Camille Paglia's, the Michael Kinsley's of the liberal world--people who could focus on a principle and argue passionately for it? Has liberalism finally so squelched the ability to focus and think critically that nobody can actually discuss a topic any more?

Actually my post is none of the things that you claim and yours is all of them.

 

[PMZ]

Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made: the fact that 'fair' is subjective. And indeed, it can be.

But that was the whole point of the OP. Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.

For me a 'fair share' is":
1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.

2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.

3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

So that's it in a nutshell. I challenge all to critique the concept. (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)

''1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''

Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' . Of course, at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.

As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive. We also choose to reward others, who work no harder, with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme. We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes. We have traditionally chosen the tax route.

''2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''

''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?

3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy. We, the people, elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size. And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.

If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?

 

[PMZ]

I think that it's a useful simplification to think of a country as a 100 person pioneer community isolated in the woods somewhere.

That makes it clearer that all of the goods and services that they have is exactly all of the goods and services that they produce. Which begs the question, how to divide them up?

Some would make the assumption that everyone did what they were best equipped to do and say, equally. Others might say that there must be jobs that nobody likes to do, so it might be necessary to reward people who do them higher to get them done. And there are any number of other scenarios.

Getting away from that oversimplification back to the real world, in most cases nobody really chooses an optimal wealth distribution. It evolves on its own.

But our representatives do choose tax systems. So that becomes our only opportunity to adjust whatever dysfunction occurs in income distribution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made: the fact that 'fair' is subjective. And indeed, it can be.

But that was the whole point of the OP. Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.

For me a 'fair share' is":
1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.

2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.

3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

So that's it in a nutshell. I challenge all to critique the concept. (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)

''1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''

Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' . Of course, at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.

As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive. We also choose to reward others, who work no harder, with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme. We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes. We have traditionally chosen the tax route.

''2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''

''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?

3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy. We, the people, elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size. And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.

If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?

1. Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them. And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all. That is not the same proportionally.

Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else. In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.

How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.

2. An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted. If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.

3. The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.

A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist. All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that. The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.