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

[Spiderman]

More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.

How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?

 

[RKMBrown]

More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.

How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

I thought you were one of the Rich folks? How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.

 

[bripat9643]

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?

How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business. Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function. You shouldn't even get into discussions like this with Nazis like PMS because all you're doing is conceding his premiss the government has the authority to determine our incomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.

This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%. Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.

So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?

 

[PMZ]

The most inconvenient truth for the American aristocracy is that they have been completely victorious. They have virtually all of the wealth. What they don't have, relatively speaking are crumbs, floor sweepings.

And yet, perhaps to their surprise, it's not enough.

Perhaps that's because it's really not about money after all, but power.

And there is that wretched democracy thing that says the poorest of us theoretically has the same power over government as the wealthiest.
Damn it!

Of course that's only theoretical because wealth buys power at least in Republican land. The wealthy have their very own party. Of course the have to share it with the dixiecrats, a despicable bunch if there ever was one, but still having the Speaker of the House on a leash is real power.

But still damn it, the poor, have a President who believes that he represents everyone, including the scum.

Democracy, what we, the people fought tooth and nail for over the entire life of the nation has to go. We have to return to the founders aristocracy because that's what the powerful are entitled by the god of wealth to.

But damn democracy is in the way.

 

[bripat9643]

The stock market is booming as you say because the government via the fed is artificially holding interest rates near zero and the only place to get any return at all on your money is the stock market. Why do you think that when there is talk of raising interest rates the market hiccups?

Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.

I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.

No one expects Democrats to be smart. The people who elected them are dumb, so it's not surprising when they are also dumb.

 

[Spiderman]

The most inconvenient truth for the American aristocracy is that they have been completely victorious. They have virtually all of the wealth. What they don't have, relatively speaking are crumbs, floor sweepings.

"they " have almost all the wealth yet "they" are not stopping you from increasing your net worth or wealth are they?

 

[RKMBrown]

Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.

I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.

No one expects Democrats to be smart. The people who elected them are dumb, so it's not surprising when they are also dumb.

The democrats to watch out for are the smart ones, like Hillary.

 

[bripat9643]

Fox News says the we shouldn't have bailed out Detroit Auto. That opinion seems to have no basis other than trying to drag popular opinion of our government to new lows.

In truth there is only one way to get the remaining way out of the valley of Bush. GDP. Growth. The business of business. That's what will pay the bills that his policies left in their wake.

Detroit Auto is part of that solution.

More 'news' from Fox. '' You advocate for crap like a living wage.''

How radical. Pay people enough to live on so they don't need welfare. Create jobs that put people into taxable income. How are companies going to do that and pay executives as royalty?

''Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare.''

The mess? System start up problems? How many years of updates does a new windows or IOS take before they're running right?

Empowering consumers with competitive information? How radical is that? Making insurance companies compete above board. Simply communistic.

The only thing that the present GOP has to offer is very well done propaganda.

They will either dump dixiecrats and end propaganda or go extinct.

You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.

FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.

Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.

You're now the global expert on how compensation works?

You're the one that wants it both ways. You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation. People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.

What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills? I'm OK with that.

 

[bripat9643]

This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%. Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.

As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.

I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.

You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?

The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.

When compensation gets fixed, and when we stop rewarding having wealth over creating wealth, all of these problems go away.

How do we reward "having wealth?" What wealth do burger flippers produce that makes them worth any more than $7.00/hour?

 

[PMZ]

That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.

This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%. Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.

So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?

How many wealthy are on welfare because of their ''soaking''?

There are many poor on welfare as a result of their ''soaking'' at the pay window. Who benefits from that?

 

[bripat9643]

More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.

How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

You mean you and the rest of the kleptocrats assume that. I, on the other hand, assume that each person decides for himself how important each dollar he spends is.

 

[PMZ]

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?

No. For each income class have one rate. Affordable for that class.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.

FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.

Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.

You're now the global expert on how compensation works?

You're the one that wants it both ways. You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation. People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.

What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills? I'm OK with that.

He thinks flipping burgers at McDonalds should pay six figures and Managers, Executives, and Company owners should be paid the same amount. And everyone will live happily ever after because we all earn the same amount.

 

[PMZ]

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?

That’s what we do with a progressive income tax. It's the most efficient way to achieve what you suggest.

 

[bripat9643]

This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%. Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.

So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?

How many wealthy are on welfare because of their ''soaking''?

There are many poor on welfare as a result of their ''soaking'' at the pay window. Who benefits from that?

Employers don't "soak" anyone. That term refers to a government policy of confiscating the income of people that aren't popular. Only government can "soak" anyone because it requires the use of guns.

 

[PMZ]

How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth. Net worth is wealth.

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

I thought you were one of the Rich folks? How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.

Me too you.

 

[bripat9643]

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?

No. For each income class have one rate. Affordable for that class.

Meaning, soak them for as much as the government can get out of them. That's the value system of thieves and armed robbers.

 

[PMZ]

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?

How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business. Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function. You shouldn't even get into discussions like this with Nazis like PMS because all you're doing is conceding his premiss the government has the authority to determine our incomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You still are struggling to grasp the concept that Nazis, like Jihadists, and Tea Partyers are right wing extremists.

 

[RKMBrown]

We could apply the higher rate to all income.

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential, and the last on the most frivolous. Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.

I thought you were one of the Rich folks? How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.

Me too you.

me also you? Are you drunk? You are arguing the rich don't pay AMT. Duh! Hello, McFly!!! AMT