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

[Spiderman]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.

The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.

 

[PMZ]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Who decides who earns it?

Typically, it's the wealthy. You think that's what they already have almost all of it?

 

[Spiderman]

I

I'm into 'treating' people not dollars. Do you see how silly it is for a country at the extreme of wealth distribution to make it more so?

Taxes are about raising money for government functions.

If there is a tax on gas everyone who buys a gallon of gas pays the tax.

If there is a tax on alcohol everyone who buys alcohol pays the tax

There is a tax on income so why shouldn't everyone with an income pay income tax?

If there is going to be a tax on income why should dollar one be treated any differently from dollar 1 million?

I'm for treating all people equally as in exactly the same no matter what their income.

Because wealth distribution in the US is extreme enough now to be dysfunctional. Making it more, rather than less so, with our tax system, would increase the dysfunction.

So called wealth inequality is meaningless to the average person.

Anyone, even you, can increase their wealth anytime they want.

The reality is they don't want to.

 

[Spiderman]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Who decides who earns it?

Typically, it's the wealthy. You think that's what they already have almost all of it?

No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.

The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.

Why is that a problem? Oh yeah .. PMS thinks they should have more money because he does and if they don't have as much as he does it's because the "man" is keeping them down.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Who decides who earns it?

Typically, it's the wealthy. You think that's what they already have almost all of it?

And if they haven't earned the money they are receiving who's the dumb ass that is paying them?

 

[Foxfyre]

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000 or 1000% more than the guy making $10,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

 

[Gadawg73]

True. You can't get the right wing to take responsibility for anything except taking out Bin Laden. The one thing they had nothing to do with.

They take responsibility for themselves and their families without demanding government plunder the resources of what others earned to give to them.

For people who take care of themselves you certainly do an awful lot of childish whining.

Anything I can do including whining to keep the moocher class out of my pockets.
How else do we fight the increase of the moochers and parasites?

 

[Gadawg73]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

It does.

Before it is redistributed to those that voted for it to be stolen and given to them.

 

[zeke]

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

 

[Foxfyre]

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.

The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance. They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government. The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy. Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.

Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it. The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.

A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.

That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer. The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received. So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out. Government dollars not so much if at all.

That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs. We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that. It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.

 

[RKMBrown]

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

Just another set of bullshit deflections. This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads. What will out of work government workers do? Die or become productive.

 

[kaz]

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

You get a lot of benefits before you even cut spending.

Cutting taxes grows the economy, so the amount that needs to be made up is lower and deficits are lower as a percent of GDP.

Tax receipts also go up dramatically because people stop making decisions to reduce or evade taxes, so you collect more of what's owed.

Companies and individuals will also greatly reduce making economically inefficient decisions because taxes skews the playing field, contributing to the first two benefits.

Then, we should stop our foreign wars and cut military spending as well as reducing Federal payroll and getting rid of departments like energy and education that do nothing but harm the area they are responsible for.

But the biggest thing is that then what you do is just stop spending growth and the economy will grow faster as it's unencumbered and tax receipts will grow and wipe out the deficit completely. Then by holding spending in check we can reduce the debt, which will reduce interest payments.

Deficits grow on themselves, so do surpluses.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.

• 
  It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
  
  It can be inherited.
  
  It can be stolen.
  
  It can be begged.
  
  And it can be looted.

Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.

The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.

Support whom you will, but I support the producers.

 

[PMZ]

I

Taxes are about raising money for government functions.

If there is a tax on gas everyone who buys a gallon of gas pays the tax.

If there is a tax on alcohol everyone who buys alcohol pays the tax

There is a tax on income so why shouldn't everyone with an income pay income tax?

If there is going to be a tax on income why should dollar one be treated any differently from dollar 1 million?

I'm for treating all people equally as in exactly the same no matter what their income.

Because wealth distribution in the US is extreme enough now to be dysfunctional. Making it more, rather than less so, with our tax system, would increase the dysfunction.

So called wealth inequality is meaningless to the average person.

Anyone, even you, can increase their wealth anytime they want.

The reality is they don't want to.

The conservative lie. If you fall for it you're a sucker.

 

[PMZ]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Who decides who earns it?

Typically, it's the wealthy. You think that's what they already have almost all of it?

No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.

How do you know?

 

[PMZ]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.

The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.

Why is that a problem? Oh yeah .. PMS thinks they should have more money because he does and if they don't have as much as he does it's because the "man" is keeping them down.

Why do you think that you want them to pay your taxes?

Poorer poor and richer rich is the bottom line of all tyrannies.

 

[PMZ]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

Who decides who earns it?

Typically, it's the wealthy. You think that's what they already have almost all of it?

And if they haven't earned the money they are receiving who's the dumb ass that is paying them?

Some of the money that you take we give back to the rightful owners. Workers. Through taxes.

 

[PMZ]

They take responsibility for themselves and their families without demanding government plunder the resources of what others earned to give to them.

For people who take care of themselves you certainly do an awful lot of childish whining.

Anything I can do including whining to keep the moocher class out of my pockets.
How else do we fight the increase of the moochers and parasites?

Move to place that has no crime.

 

[PMZ]

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?

It does.

Before it is redistributed to those that voted for it to be stolen and given to them.

If you don't like democracy, move.