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

[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?

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

It obviously went right over your head that his analogy was meant to demonstrate how absurd the logic of the progressive income tax is.

 

[bripat9643]

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



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.

How do you "grasp" a claim that is patently false?

 

[PMZ]

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.

It takes a great deal of intelligence to remember what today's propaganda is from the Fox boobs and boobies, and to recite it accurately, even when you don't understand it, when called upon.

 

[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.

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

No.

 

[PMZ]

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.

That's why she will be our next President.

 

[PMZ]

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.

I'm fine with workers retaining a significant % of the wealth that they create.

What is dysfunctional is to ask the wealthy to divide up the wealth that workers create.

 

[Synthaholic]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

That's extremely regressive. That hurts poor people, and the middle class. It doesn't affect the wealthy at all, and keeps them from paying their fair share.

 

[Synthaholic]

I would take a stab at answering this OP's question, but I am aware that it is a waste of time, since the majority of people in this thread and on this site have no clue as to how the progressive tax system we have already actually works.

They actually think that your tax rate goes up on all of your income as your income goes up!

Until they actually know what they're talking about . . . well, I can't fix stupid.

 

[PMZ]

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?

Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source, be rewarded by half tax rates compared to working for it, and creating it?

Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?

 

[mamooth]

Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation.

Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.

 

[RKMBrown]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

That's extremely regressive. That hurts poor people, and the middle class. It doesn't affect the wealthy at all, and keeps them from paying their fair share.

Why is it regressive? Sales tax does not apply to food products, medicine, etc.

 

[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.

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.

Each dollar is only important to those with only a few.

 

[PMZ]

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

No, I'm, ''starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.''

 

[PMZ]

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



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.

Capitaliam says that everyone is entitled to the wealth that they create.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Here's the Big Delusion sold on Fox news by employers.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source, be rewarded by half tax rates compared to working for it, and creating it?

Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?

They both vote don't they? They both live in the same country don't they? They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they? Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?

 

[PMZ]

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.

How come you can only talk about what I think? Who speaks for what, if anything, you think?

Me?

 

[PMZ]

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

Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source, be rewarded by half tax rates compared to working for it, and creating it?

Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?

They both vote don't they? They both live in the same country don't they? They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they? Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?

He should be payed enough to pay his way.

 

[RKMBrown]

Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation.

Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.

Adam Smith wrote:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

IOW he was simply proposing rent tax would fall on the rich more so than the homeless poor, that does not mean he was proposing progressive income taxes. He was proposing taxes of one kind of an equal % for all over taxes that hit the cost of food products. Sales taxes that exempt food products does the same thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source, be rewarded by half tax rates compared to working for it, and creating it?

Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?

They both vote don't they? They both live in the same country don't they? They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they? Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?

He should be payed enough to pay his way.

No he should be payed what he negotiated with his employer. Why is it to hard for you to understand that people are responsible for themselves?