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

[PMZ]

One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here, we have a business problem.

All of the problems argued here would be alleviated if business would return to growing, and provide a well paying job for every worker.

The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.

Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing. Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today, on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage

 

[PMZ]

$1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...

As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...

You're the one who's not. Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies. His wars. His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family. Recovery from his Great Recession. All instead of paying off, off, off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

''50% get more money back than they paid in''

Love to see how this works. A negative income tax.

 

[kaz]

You're the one who's not. Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies. His wars. His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family. Recovery from his Great Recession. All instead of paying off, off, off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do, and the same for the poor, is because the wealthy, as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.

Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.

That number is so cooked. And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it. And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn. People need to take some personal responsibility. Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.

 

[kaz]

You're the one who's not. Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies. His wars. His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family. Recovery from his Great Recession. All instead of paying off, off, off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

''50% get more money back than they paid in''

Love to see how this works. A negative income tax.

Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits." You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.

 

[PMZ]

$1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...

As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...

You're the one who's not. Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies. His wars. His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family. Recovery from his Great Recession. All instead of paying off, off, off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

I'm sure that you'll avoid learning, but if I'm wrong here's how your whine came about.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[PMZ]

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do, and the same for the poor, is because the wealthy, as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.

Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.

That number is so cooked. And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it. And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn. People need to take some personal responsibility. Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.

''That number is so cooked'' = don't confuse me with facts. I know what I want to be true.

 

[PMZ]

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

''50% get more money back than they paid in''

Love to see how this works. A negative income tax.

Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits." You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.

And you believe that half of the population gets them.

 

[DiamondDave]

''50% get more money back than they paid in''

Love to see how this works. A negative income tax.

Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits." You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.

And you believe that half of the population gets them.

Yes.. close to half gets more FROM government than they pay in... at one time, it was (if I am not mistaken) 46% or 47%..

And these folks will continue to vote for those who will keep up the government practice that gives them free shit and makes others pay for it

Funny how people would most likely have a different view of government, and government spending, if they actually had an equal % stake in the game

 

[PMZ]

Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.

The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do, and the same for the poor, is because the wealthy, as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.

Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.

That number is so cooked. And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it. And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn. People need to take some personal responsibility. Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.

There is a solution. Business growth. No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.

 

[PMZ]

Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we, the people, as government leaders are.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO

the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.

I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.

Such a proposal (tax floor) is simply a disguised progressive tax... I have shown this many times before with simple mathematics.. but for a quick view, let me just give a small example

Assume a salary floor of 10K and flat rate of 10%

Person A making 10K pays an effective 0% rate
Person B making 20K pays tax on 10K for a total of $1K and a 5% effective rate
Person C making 100K pays tax on $90K for a total of $9K for an effective rate of 9%
Person D making 1M pays tax on $990K for a total of $99K for an effective rate of 9.9%

So basically you have a falsely named flat tax...

I think you're numbers are fucked up.


Person B making 20k pays taxes on 20k for a total of 2k @ten percent . You don't pay taxes on half your income.

If one person earned $50,000 a year and another earned $300,000 a year, both would pay 17 percent of their income to the federal government.

This effective rate nonsense is just more bureaucratic bullshit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.

I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.

I think every voting citizen should have some skin in the game no matter their income.

You have 47 percent of the population that doesn't pay federal income tax but vote on issues that affect the lives of those that do.

No citizen making even $1 should be exempt from income tax on that $1

You're beginning to sound more like a liberal with each post.

Talk to me when you get back to reality.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits." You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.

And you believe that half of the population gets them.

Yes.. close to half gets more FROM government than they pay in... at one time, it was (if I am not mistaken) 46% or 47%..

And these folks will continue to vote for those who will keep up the government practice that gives them free shit and makes others pay for it

Funny how people would most likely have a different view of government, and government spending, if they actually had an equal % stake in the game

Refundable Tax Credits
By William Perez, About.com Guide
Definition: A refundable tax credit is a tax credit that is treated as a payment and thus can be refunded to the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service. Refundable credits can be used strategically to help offset certain types of taxes that normally cannot be reduced, and they can produce a federal tax refund that is larger than the amount of money a person actually paid in during the year.
Refundable credits are contrasted with nonrefundable tax credits. The vast majority of tax credits are nonrefundable: meaning that these credits can reduce your federal income tax liability to zero, and any remaining credits won't be refunded to the taxpayer.

Refundable tax credits available to individual taxpayers include:

the earned income credit,
the adoption tax credit for the years 2010 and 2011 only,
a portion of the child tax credit,
a portion of the American opportunity credit for college expenses,
the homebuyer credit,
the making work pay credit,
credit for excess Social Security withholding, and
the health coverage credit.
Naturally, withholding for federal income taxes and estimated taxes are also refundable credits, as these are prepayments towards a person's tax liability. Refundable tax credits, like payments, are applied towards a person's tax obligations, and any over-payments are refunded back to the taxpayer.


From http://taxes.about.com/od/taxglossary/g/refundable-tax-credits.htm

 

[Spiderman]

Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we, the people, as government leaders are.

Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders. if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we, the people, as government leaders are.

Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders. if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.

I'm beginning to see the problem though. PMZ and others of his ilk--not that I believe for a mnute he is posting anything he actually believes here because he contradicts hmself too much--but they honestly believe the communist view that all business and all resources belong to the people. They don't really believe in private ownership or unalienable rights related to property at all.

So the bottom line for a communist is that a 'fair share' is 100%. The government should have the right to take it all and then redistribute it according to what people need at the time. And the corporation will work to support the people rather than for its own profits. And butterflies will emerge from unicorn butts, blue birds will sing, and all trouble and want will disappear from the face of the Earth.

 

[kaz]

The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do, and the same for the poor, is because the wealthy, as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.

Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.

That number is so cooked. And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it. And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn. People need to take some personal responsibility. Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.

There is a solution. Business growth. No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.

Yes comrade, the proletariat is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie. Our politician comrades, who only care about us and hate that they must live in ostentatious opulence, need to decide which businesses are primarily serving the interest of the State, which means they are serving the people, and remove the ones who do not. Only through complete subjugation to a State with ubiquitous power can we be free.

You're a Marxist. That's fine, just be honest about it.

 

[Peterf]

If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit. What do you think government is?

When are you moving to Cuba, asshole?

You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'. Why do you do it? It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.

Why do you let words like that offend you?

Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?

People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.

I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.

Vulgarities don't offend me. But when they are used by people broadly on my side of an argument they worry me. Because they make my potential allies seem ignorant and linguistically challenged; quite unable to make a point in an interesting, intelligent or even amusing way. By using the same 'lingo' you drag down your apparent IQ by ten percentage points. You diminish yourself not the person you are addressing.

 

[Bern80]

One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here, we have a business problem.

All of the problems argued here would be alleviated if business would return to growing, and provide a well paying job for every worker.

The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.

Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing. Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today, on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage

Society at large has no business rewarding or not rewarding businesses. You, as a third party, are not supposed to get a vote in agreed upon transactions between two parties.

And your shrink to success idea is laughable. There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs.

As a big government type it's interesting that you mention the importance of a business growing seeing as how the ever expansion of government from its taxes to its regulations serve as direct impediments to that growth.

 

[PMZ]

Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we, the people, as government leaders are.

Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders. if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.

Only if you are a country hating conservative. And that's why they fail so badly at governance.

Shareholders are people who gamble on stock prices. They really don't care or know anything about the company, or benefit it beyond their sell target.

Costumers can only choose to buy your product or from your competition or do without. They are the easiest people to fool with today's advertising.

So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.

The Supreme Court says that they are American citizens just like you and I. If so they, like conservatives, are irresponsible citizens.

 

[g5000]

There is nothing wrong with a progressive tax. None other than conservative idol Thomas Jefferson insisted that is the kind of tax system we should have.

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

You hear that? Old Tom was perfectly fine with lower income people not paying any taxes! He also said we need a progressive tax system!



What is outrageous in this country is the fact that people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income tax. And that is because of the massive entitlement mentality of all Americans, each demanding their own subsidy. Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Mortgage subsidies are among the biggest and worst of such subsidies. The mortgage subsidy is a hugely regressive tax. The richer you are, the bigger the mortgage you can get, which means the bigger the subsidy you get from the government.

Since when is a federal subsidy for your mortgage a conservative princple? Since when is government intervention in the housing market a conservative principle?

The Right was screaming itself bloody over government intervention in the housing market when the economy collapsed. So why aren't they screaming for the mortgage interest subsidy to be eliminated?

When one person is paying more income taxes than another person earning the same income, "fair share" is not even in the same Universe.