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

[dcraelin]

He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property. Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property. It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods. Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.

Ayup, funny how they missed that. They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on. But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive. LOL I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.

The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.

Obviously the fact the he's trying to demonstrate why the logic of progressive taxation is stupid went right over your head as well.

no it didnt, it just that his point didnt make any sense

The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government

So that means the government actually is the legal owner of every dollar my employer pays me?

every dollar?...no Im just saying the utitilty of money is worthless without government....u people need to learn a little reading comprehension

[It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall.

It shows that you're an imbecile. Apparently you believe a "windfall" is money that rightly belongs to the government. You're nothing but a thug who wants to take what others have earned.

Your resorting to name calling shows u are losing the argument. In a market economy, compensation is largely a result of Supply and Demand. The government maintains the conditions for that Market...polices it. Taxing a part of the windfall this creates for some is just a policy choice.

 

[RKMBrown]

He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property. Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property. It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods. Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.

Ayup, funny how they missed that. They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on. But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive. LOL I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.

The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.

Not sure why you are having a problem understanding what he clearly said. Not sure why you feel the need to inject modern terminology for progressive taxation into a document that is over 200years old and in which the term is not even there.

Proportion is a ratio which is a flat percentage, this proportion (flat percentage) is based on the amount of rent. He based it on rent because he assumes the rich pay rent and the poor do not, or if they do the amount is significantly less based on their ability to pay more or less for more or less expensive properties. Nothing in his statements even hints at a moving the rates up both in proportion to the amount of rent and also exponentially with the amount of income of the individual. He merely selects rent for the tax based on the proportion of rich that pay rent vs the poor that don't.

You are sooooo wrong it's not even funny but you seem to want to talk about it without name calling so ... will try.

As I already stated, he's basically continuing the theme of original Tea Party in explaining that we should not be taxing food.

 

[zeke]

Ayup, funny how they missed that. They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on. But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive. LOL I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.

The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.

Not sure why you are having a problem understanding what he clearly said. Not sure why you feel the need to inject modern terminology for progressive taxation into a document that is over 200years old and in which the term is not even there.

Proportion is a ratio which is a flat percentage, this proportion (flat percentage) is based on the amount of rent. He based it on rent because he assumes the rich pay rent and the poor do not, or if they do the amount is significantly less based on their ability to pay more or less for more or less expensive properties. Nothing in his statements even hints at a moving the rates up both in proportion to the amount of rent and also exponentially with the amount of income of the individual. He merely selects rent for the tax based on the proportion of rich that pay rent vs the poor that don't.

You are sooooo wrong it's not even funny but you seem to want to talk about it without name calling so ... will try.

As I already stated, he's basically continuing the theme of original Tea Party in explaining that we should not be taxing food.

WTF are you talking about? The rich pay rent and the poor do not. You got nothing worth saying or reading there dude. Gobbledygook. Please try again. LMAO.

 

[RKMBrown]

The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.

Not sure why you are having a problem understanding what he clearly said. Not sure why you feel the need to inject modern terminology for progressive taxation into a document that is over 200years old and in which the term is not even there.

Proportion is a ratio which is a flat percentage, this proportion (flat percentage) is based on the amount of rent. He based it on rent because he assumes the rich pay rent and the poor do not, or if they do the amount is significantly less based on their ability to pay more or less for more or less expensive properties. Nothing in his statements even hints at a moving the rates up both in proportion to the amount of rent and also exponentially with the amount of income of the individual. He merely selects rent for the tax based on the proportion of rich that pay rent vs the poor that don't.

You are sooooo wrong it's not even funny but you seem to want to talk about it without name calling so ... will try.

As I already stated, he's basically continuing the theme of original Tea Party in explaining that we should not be taxing food.

WTF are you talking about? The rich pay rent and the poor do not. You got nothing worth saying or reading there dude. Gobbledygook. Please try again. LMAO.

Are you mentally handicapped? We are talking about what Adam wrote douche bag. Are you incapable of understanding a discussion about what someone else wrote without attributing what they wrote to the person discussing it? Are you that retarded that you run out of a movie theater when someone in the movie says fire? Or is it even worse, that you don't know the difference between 'I' and 'he'? WTF?

 

[PMZ]

My first child started school in 1991.
This is what we saw for 2 decades as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.

I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime. Just like tax fraud. Criminals should be held accountable.

Wealth redistribution is a fact of life. Capitalism up, government down. Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes.

But it's not about money. It's about power. Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.

We, the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.

Dennis: An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.

Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?

You are slow. Because it's a lie, but that doesn't seem to bother you. You must be a Republican.

 

[PMZ]

And PMZ believes we live in a democracy!

If you voted you'd know that I'm right.

Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.

We are a Republic. No monarch.

On election days you don't vote for your choice for President, a Senator, and a House member?

If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.

 

[PMZ]

My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.

Kill or be killed. The predators motto. Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.

The predators are the Democrats plundering from the producers to give out to the expanding moocher class for votes.

The Democrats mostly represent workers who create everyone's wealth.

A great reality show would be CEOs in their factories trying to run them without workers.

 

[PMZ]

My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.

Kill or be killed. The predators motto. Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.

Adequate for those that have had the balls to suit it up and cross the lines.
Obviously that would not have included you.

Go back to the caves if you want. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from living like an animal except your gonads.

 

[PMZ]

As labor is a commodity, yes, that's how it works.

And no, your narrow minded option is not the only one. It is no one's responsibility but your own to ensure you have what you need to live on. THAT is the other option. People take responsibility for themselves and if they don't we allow them to suffer the consequences. Just the same way you said a business should be run.

So, in your mind all poverty stems from irresponsibility?

I see no more evidence for that than the position that no poverty stems from it.

No. The point is no one can obligate someone else to their own survival. Regardless of whether the conditions they're in are their own fault or not.

A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.

In fact, I would venture that most human beings would disagree.

If you want a real life demonstration, threaten one of my grandchildren.

 

[PMZ]

He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property. Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property. It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods. Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.

Ayup, funny how they missed that. They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on. But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive. LOL I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.

It's amazing that liberals can dress themselves in the morning, let alone solve simple math problems.

Of course conservatives can't without Fox.

 

[PMZ]

It's OK with you if they retain a portion of their wealth? I've never seen such an obviously Fascist point of view posted in this forum.

The workers get all the wealth they are entitled to. The wealthy take nothing from anyone. If you don't like the pay your employer has agreed to pay you, then go somewhere else. You are insisting that you are entitled to hold a gun to someone's head for force them to give you what you think you are entitled to, not what they have agreed to give you. That's what's at the bottom of all these discussions about a so-called "living wage."

I can picture you in 1860, with a gun nested in your arms, giving that speech to slaves.

I can picture you in 1933 wearing a brown shirt, jack boots and an armband with a swastika on it shouting "Heil Hitler!"

'

'You get two meals a day. You got a roof over your head, some rags on your back. Stop bitchin'. You don't have my responsibilities taking care of the big house! ''

You are pathetic. Freedom of contract isn't the equivalent of slavery. Apparently you believe black slaves gained nothing when the 13th Amendment passed. Do you believe minimum wage is just as bad as getting flogged or having your foot amputated? Apparently you do.

Despicable.

If you want to earn more than $7.00 an hour, no one is stopping you from gaining the skills you need to get more.

Slave owners were obligated by their greed, if nothing else, to provide their slaves with survival. Food, housing, clothing, tools, protection, health care such as it was then.

Employers today don't feel that obligation.

 

[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.

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

Because the poor and middle-class spend a much higher proportion of their income on bought goods.

When you are making $750,000 and up, consumption taxes are chump change. The wealthy would jump at that in a second.

The Estate Tax needs to be brought back in it's former form. Loopholes that allow G.E. and Exxon to not only pay no taxes, but also get a tax rebate, are ridiculous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

No he wouldn't, bonehead. You would have to prove that it was false. Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm. You know less about the law than you know about climate.

I agree with the financial harm part. The other part is, once again, only what you want to be true.

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning. It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.

Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have: innocent until proven guilty. It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime; the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.

On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser. Sounds consistent with liberalism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?

How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?

It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.

No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.

It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve. Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours? Same basic concept. I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.

If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.

 

[kaz]

Dennis: An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.

Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?

You are slow. Because it's a lie, but that doesn't seem to bother you. You must be a Republican.

When you come up with a view that isn't Marxist, get back to me.

 

[kaz]

If you voted you'd know that I'm right.

Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.

We are a Republic. No monarch.

On election days you don't vote for your choice for President, a Senator, and a House member?

If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.

Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms. The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.

 

[PMZ]

No he wouldn't, bonehead. You would have to prove that it was false. Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm. You know less about the law than you know about climate.

I agree with the financial harm part. The other part is, once again, only what you want to be true.

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning. It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.

Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have: innocent until proven guilty. It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime; the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.

On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser. Sounds consistent with liberalism.

His post is proof that he slandered me.

 

[PMZ]

Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.

We are a Republic. No monarch.

On election days you don't vote for your choice for President, a Senator, and a House member?

If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.

Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms. The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.

I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.

A republic is a government without a monarch.

Democracy is a decision making strategy. By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.

You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy. Rule by the privileged.

Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away. Our government is of, by, and for the people. Not the privileged. All the people.

 

[PMZ]

Dennis: An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.

Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?

You are slow. Because it's a lie, but that doesn't seem to bother you. You must be a Republican.

When you come up with a view that isn't Marxist, get back to me.

As I said, lying is who you are. Why would anyone get back to that?

 

[PMZ]

How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?

It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.

No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.

It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve. Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours? Same basic concept. I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.

If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.

Another conservative icon. Avoid accountability. Avoid responsibility.
What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.

The peak of ignorance.