Class War Illustrated

[Cuyo]

This is the question asked a number of times now. I'll leave you gentlemen with it to think about if you're going to be up for awhile. Not that I expect any of you to be able to answer it since you've avoided that for hours now. But hope springs eternal.

Good night all.

The question:

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

It implies they started off even.
It implies they both had choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous.

What makes him responsible?

The moral obligation to help others regardless of their bad choices.

I see. And thank you for answering. That makes you a FIRST among liberals that I have presented with that question.

So, okay then. Could you please start sending me about $2500 each month as I didn't save enough for the retirement I would like to have and it's a pretty safe bet that your income far exceeds mine?

The question is loaded. I went back to AllieBabble's list of logical fallacies, and I couldn't find one that matched explicitely; But basically your 'Question' assumes that the goal of liberalism is to create an equivalence of property, eg Communism.

It implies they start off even? It implies they both had choices?

THAT's the problem. They don't start off even, and they don't have the same array of choices. Liberalism seeks to create something resembling an equality of opportunity; But NOT an equality of property. I've never once heard a liberal; Either politician, USMB poster, or someone in real life; Suggest that the rich should be taxed and their money given directly to less fortunate. It's ridiculous to make that veiled accusation.

However, I hear conservatives imply that that's all liberals want over. And over. And over.

So forgive me for not answering the question. It's based on a false premise, and frankly I find it insulting.

 

[Cuyo]

sounds good to me.....

Strictly on principle? Or do you believe that will be beneficial to society?

Both.

The principle being that we are intended to be a people with unalienable rights recognized, respected, and secured who govern ourselves rather than be subject to and dependent on a strong central government that decides what rights we will and will not have on any given day.

Toward that end, the federal government should be taking no more from the people than it absolutely has to have in order to do its constitutionally mandated functions.

Because the people will almost always use their own money in a way that will benefit all more effectively and efficiently than the government will do that on their behalf, the benefit to society could be enormous.

That last paragraph is blatantly false.

As was the premise a few pages ago, years of slashing taxes (on everyone, but especially the top earners) have brought the middle class to its knees. "Middle class" hardly exists anymore imo, it's being replaced by working poor.

 

[manifold]

No they don't. The Founders were quite clear in thier words. The recourse is by amendment process rather than decades of usurpation as we are suffering under now.

Their only words that matter are those in the document itself. Even Madison said as much in the vaunted Federalist Papers.

Now go find the passage from the Constitution itself that settles the matter and proves that your interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation.

Here's a hint: There isn't one.

Your FIRST CLUE: Words mean things.

I accept your tantrum laden concession.

 

[Trajan]

Strictly on principle? Or do you believe that will be beneficial to society?

Both.

The principle being that we are intended to be a people with unalienable rights recognized, respected, and secured who govern ourselves rather than be subject to and dependent on a strong central government that decides what rights we will and will not have on any given day.

Toward that end, the federal government should be taking no more from the people than it absolutely has to have in order to do its constitutionally mandated functions.

Because the people will almost always use their own money in a way that will benefit all more effectively and efficiently than the government will do that on their behalf, the benefit to society could be enormous.

That last paragraph is blatantly false.

As was the premise a few pages ago, years of slashing taxes (on everyone, but especially the top earners) have brought the middle class to its knees. "Middle class" hardly exists anymore imo, it's being replaced by working poor.

and there ya go.


This is exactly what I was referencing in my last post Cuyo.

you have in fact provided the answer without provding one- you apparently think that any level of taxation is fine as long as its on the 'right' people' and I don't buy your 50% level sorry but thats not what your statement alludes to. You don't want to start at the proper place, what is the individuals responsibility to the collective via their labor as a transfer to the gov.

 

[The T]

Their only words that matter are those in the document itself. Even Madison said as much in the vaunted Federalist Papers.

Now go find the passage from the Constitution itself that settles the matter and proves that your interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation.

Here's a hint: There isn't one.

Your FIRST CLUE: Words mean things.

I accept your tantrum laden concession.

No Tantrum expressed or implied. Only Assumed by you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys, let's don't spoil this now. We have been having a perfectly civil discussion despite strong disagreements and different points of view and I have been enjoying it immensely. Rare on USMB and in the message board world in general. I've appreciated it.

 

[The T]

Come on guys, let's don't spoil this now. We have been having a perfectly civil discussion despite strong disagreements and different points of view and I have been enjoying it immensely. Rare on USMB and in the message board world in general. I've appreciated it.

Concur.

 

[Cuyo]

Both.

The principle being that we are intended to be a people with unalienable rights recognized, respected, and secured who govern ourselves rather than be subject to and dependent on a strong central government that decides what rights we will and will not have on any given day.

Toward that end, the federal government should be taking no more from the people than it absolutely has to have in order to do its constitutionally mandated functions.

Because the people will almost always use their own money in a way that will benefit all more effectively and efficiently than the government will do that on their behalf, the benefit to society could be enormous.

That last paragraph is blatantly false.

As was the premise a few pages ago, years of slashing taxes (on everyone, but especially the top earners) have brought the middle class to its knees. "Middle class" hardly exists anymore imo, it's being replaced by working poor.

and there ya go.


This is exactly what I was referencing in my last post Cuyo.

you have in fact provided the answer without provding one- you apparently think that any level of taxation is fine as long as its on the 'right' people' and I don't buy your 50% level sorry but thats not what your statement alludes to. You don't want to start at the proper place, what is the individuals responsibility to the collective via their labor as a transfer to the gov.

You're drifting off into fallacies.

You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: That's not the topic at hand.
You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: It's not relevant, but lets say I like Clinton plus a 50% bracket for $1m+.
You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: I already answered that.
You: See? You only want to tax the rich. Thank you for proving my point.
Me: You're drifting off into fallacies.

Let's start over, if you're so inclined.

The current tax rates are clearly not high enough, evidenced by the record deficits we're encountering. How do you propose we handle this issue? 84% +/- of the budget are Social Security, Medicare, and military. Discretionary spending cannot balance the budget. Even eliminating the entire military would not balance the budget; let alone the rise in unemployment thereof. Meanwhile, poverty is rising and taxes on top earners are lower than they've been in 60+ years.

You start; Because you phrase your questions in a way that leads me by a bull ring to a fore-conceived conclusion chosen by you.

 

[cutter]

That last paragraph is blatantly false.

As was the premise a few pages ago, years of slashing taxes (on everyone, but especially the top earners) have brought the middle class to its knees. "Middle class" hardly exists anymore imo, it's being replaced by working poor.

and there ya go.


This is exactly what I was referencing in my last post Cuyo.

you have in fact provided the answer without provding one- you apparently think that any level of taxation is fine as long as its on the 'right' people' and I don't buy your 50% level sorry but thats not what your statement alludes to. You don't want to start at the proper place, what is the individuals responsibility to the collective via their labor as a transfer to the gov.

You're drifting off into fallacies.

You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: That's not the topic at hand.
You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: It's not relevant, but lets say I like Clinton plus a 50% bracket for $1m+.
You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: I already answered that.
You: See? You only want to tax the rich. Thank you for proving my point.
Me: You're drifting off into fallacies.

Let's start over, if you're so inclined.

The current tax rates are clearly not high enough, evidenced by the record deficits we're encountering. How do you propose we handle this issue? 84% +/- of the budget are Social Security, Medicare, and military. Discretionary spending cannot balance the budget. Even eliminating the entire military would not balance the budget; let alone the rise in unemployment thereof. Meanwhile, poverty is rising and taxes on top earners are lower than they've been in 60+ years.

You start; Because you phrase your questions in a way that leads me by a bull ring to a fore-conceived conclusion chosen by you.

The deficits come from spending too much NOT from taxing too little. Deficits always come from spending.

 

[Trajan]

its not the topic? whats the topic? that chart? talk about fallacies, that chart is garbage, its the usual red meat appeal to the lowest common denominator and a piece of agitprop, nothing more.It created its own narrow message from the answer back, not from the start to finish.

I asked several times now extremely simple questions, the responses cannot be "lead", it appears to me my friend that you simply refuse to quantify what a baseline level of taxation should be...I cannot think of a simpler way to ask it, you are free to add any number according to your view point.

You want to drive right by that question and make the discussion on taxes and absolute one you are defining without recognizing the root cause(s). If the tax code is a mess its becasue no one has stopped to ponder how we got there and why there is the tax polarization extent.

if you don't want to entertain that, then, imho, there is no argument to be had as you want to accept what is in place and work from there denying there is a root cause behind this all.


5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

example; I feel at 100k no one ( separate (married) or single) should pay more than an average ( not marginal) tax rate of 20%. All in, state and federal.

what do you think it should be for the numbers I listed?

5 Million,
1 million
500k
250k
150k
100k
75k

 

[The T]

That last paragraph is blatantly false.

As was the premise a few pages ago, years of slashing taxes (on everyone, but especially the top earners) have brought the middle class to its knees. "Middle class" hardly exists anymore imo, it's being replaced by working poor.

and there ya go.


This is exactly what I was referencing in my last post Cuyo.

you have in fact provided the answer without provding one- you apparently think that any level of taxation is fine as long as its on the 'right' people' and I don't buy your 50% level sorry but thats not what your statement alludes to. You don't want to start at the proper place, what is the individuals responsibility to the collective via their labor as a transfer to the gov.

You're drifting off into fallacies.

You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: That's not the topic at hand.
You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: It's not relevant, but lets say I like Clinton plus a 50% bracket for $1m+.
You: What do you think is a fair level of taxation?
Me: I already answered that.
You: See? You only want to tax the rich. Thank you for proving my point.
Me: You're drifting off into fallacies.

Let's start over, if you're so inclined.

The current tax rates are clearly not high enough, evidenced by the record deficits we're encountering. How do you propose we handle this issue? 84% +/- of the budget are Social Security, Medicare, and military. Discretionary spending cannot balance the budget. Even eliminating the entire military would not balance the budget; let alone the rise in unemployment thereof. Meanwhile, poverty is rising and taxes on top earners are lower than they've been in 60+ years.

You start; Because you phrase your questions in a way that leads me by a bull ring to a fore-conceived conclusion chosen by you.

You're a WELFARE Brat, aren't you? Live off the dole do you?

 

[georgephillip]

I think it will be.

But first we have to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut the defense budget.

War and private bond markets seem to be government's favorite tools for socializing cost and privatizing profit.

The state of North Dakota began doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota in 1919 and currently enjoys a budget surplus and more jobs than people looking for them.

Public banking could solve the private (Wall Street) credit problem, but I'm not too sure what to do about millions of middle class jobs dependent on Defense spending?

High speed rail and universal internet, maybe?

Imagine if we spent the money we wasted on Iraq on American energy independence.

Or carbon nanotubes.

Do you think carbon nanotubes have the potential to replace petroleum?

 

[Toro]

The proper level of taxation is the level of spending.

All spending increases should be matched by an increase in taxes.

All tax cuts should be matched by a specified decrease in spending.

There should be no spending increases without tax increases and there should be no tax cuts without spending cuts.

This should be done over a cycle. Spending cuts and tax increases during a recession is insane. Likewise, there should be no spending increases or tax cuts without fiscal offsets during an expansion unless it is shown to be neutral to the fiscal balance over the cycle.

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

 

[The T]

The proper level of taxation is the level of spending.

All spending increases should be matched by an increase in taxes.

All tax cuts should be matched by a specified decrease in spending.

There should be no spending increases without tax increases and there should be no tax cuts without spending cuts.

This should be done over a cycle. Spending cuts and tax increases during a recession is insane. Likewise, there should be no spending increases or tax cuts without fiscal offsets during an expansion unless it is shown to be neutral to the fiscal balance over the cycle.

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

Why Half? That's WAY too much.

 

[Toro]

Why Half? That's WAY too much.

I don't know what the optimal level of spending is, though I generally prefer less than more. But some will always pay more and some will pay less, and I don't think anyone should have to work the majority of their time for the government.

 

[Trajan]

The proper level of taxation is the level of spending.

All spending increases should be matched by an increase in taxes.

All tax cuts should be matched by a specified decrease in spending.

There should be no spending increases without tax increases and there should be no tax cuts without spending cuts.

This should be done over a cycle. Spending cuts and tax increases during a recession is insane. Likewise, there should be no spending increases or tax cuts without fiscal offsets during an expansion unless it is shown to be neutral to the fiscal balance over the cycle.

No one should have to pay more than half their income in taxes under any circumstances perhaps with the exception of times of war.

I agree in principal, however I would ask, who pays the 50% and how does it progress from the bottom up?

 

[Cuyo]

its not the topic? whats the topic? that chart? talk about fallacies, that chart is garbage, its the usual red meat appeal to the lowest common denominator and a piece of agitprop, nothing more.It created its own narrow message from the answer back, not from the start to finish.

I asked several times now extremely simple questions, the responses cannot be "lead", it appears to me my friend that you simply refuse to quantify what a baseline level of taxation should be...I cannot think of a simpler way to ask it, you are free to add any number according to your view point.

You want to drive right by that question and make the discussion on taxes and absolute one you are defining without recognizing the root cause(s). If the tax code is a mess its becasue no one has stopped to ponder how we got there and why there is the tax polarization extent.

if you don't want to entertain that, then, imho, there is no argument to be had as you want to accept what is in place and work from there denying there is a root cause behind this all.


5 Million, 1 million, 500k, 250k..150k 100k 75k..his tax on those amount should be...50%, 30, 20 10...what?

I, and the op, are showing a broader trend in current years - Which is to slash taxes, slash taxes, slash taxes - Then argue that there's no money and 'Entitlements' need to be cut. In other words, burden is being shifted from those who don't need help, to those who do. It's a trend I object to, not an argument that I myself want to unilaterally make tax law. It's like quitting your job, then bitching that you can't pay your bills.

example; I feel at 100k no one ( separate (married) or single) should pay more than an average ( not marginal) tax rate of 20%. All in, state and federal.

what do you think it should be for the numbers I listed?

5 Million,
1 million
500k
250k
150k
100k
75k

I've answered your question at least 4 times, but not in the format you are asking for. So here goes.

0-8k - 0%.
8-43k - 15%.
43-104k - 28%.
104-158k - 31%.
158-283k - 36%.
283-$1m - 40%.
$1m+ - 50%.
$5m+ - Still 50%.

NO EITC, NO writing off non-working spouses and children, NO upper limit on payroll taxes, and capital gains, inheritance, and gifts are subject to the exact same tax table that I've listed above.

Is that specific enough that we can move on?

 

[Trajan]

Thank you.

Just to help Me ensure I understand your post-

say that 104-158k bracket, you note capital gains, does that mean that at 150K you cash in a 10K investment and pay 31% on the whole, or is it a marginal tax framework as added to income?

 

[Cuyo]

Thank you.

Just to help Me ensure I understand your post-

say that 104-158k bracket, you note capital gains, does that mean that at 150K you cash in a 10K investment and pay 31% on the whole, or is it a marginal tax framework as added to income?

Trajan, I like you a lot, but you're starting to irritate me.

Capital gains will still be taxed on the high water mark under the Cuyo plan, same as they are now. The only difference is the table to which they're subject.

edit: Are you just trying to irritate me and laughing at me through that distant computer screen? You bastard!

 

[The T]

Why Half? That's WAY too much.

I don't know what the optimal level of spending is, though I generally prefer less than more. But some will always pay more and some will pay less, and I don't think anyone should have to work the majority of their time for the government.

Optimal level is prescribed by Article 1 Section 8. Anything else is unconstitutional, and unchallanged...until NOW.