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

[kaz]

Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all. You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.

The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People." Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.

 

[PMZ]

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Honey, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.

The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.

Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.

If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.

Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.

The Constitution is the bylaws for government. The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.

And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and that’s why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us. The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.

As I said before, the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.

It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society. Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.

 

[kaz]

As I said before, the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.

If only they had lawyers creating economic rules to fix it for them...

Our businesses are still doing well, actually. The biggest problems they have are created by government. Government is saddling domestic production with mandates, regulations and taxes. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, we are the only industrial power that regulates and taxes overseas operations and we have the mind numbingly stupid policy of taking over a third of every dollar any US company earns overseas and tries to repatriate.

And we have legions of socialists saying the problem is the hair of the dog that bit us. More baby, we need more, more, more government. Like you.

 

[PMZ]

Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all. You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.

The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People." Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.

You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme. That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.

I say let's stick to the source of freedom, democracy.

 

[PMZ]

As I said before, the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.

If only they had lawyers creating economic rules to fix it for them...

Our businesses are still doing well, actually. The biggest problems they have are created by government. Government is saddling domestic production with mandates, regulations and taxes. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, we are the only industrial power that regulates and taxes overseas operations and we have the mind numbingly stupid policy of taking over a third of every dollar any US company earns overseas and tries to repatriate.

And we have legions of socialists saying the problem is the hair of the dog that bit us. More baby, we need more, more, more government. Like you.

Businesses are doing their job when there is full employment.

 

[RKMBrown]

BS, it's the same damn thing.

Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.

Let's explain it this way:

If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a gun in a cabinet - can the police get a warrant and arrest you?

No, you have RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

If a neighbor is If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a pile of cocaine in a cabinet - can they tell the police, who get a warrant and arrest you?

IF you had a right to privacy, what was in your home would be private and the neighbor would be constrained from violating your right - just as the neighbor cannot take your gun, he would not be able to take your privacy. But you have no right to privacy, so the neighbor is free to violate your privacy and the police are free to use that violation as a basis to obtain a warrant.

The 4th constrains the government from conducting random searches on private property - it is a property right. Note that the police can and do conduct warrantless searches on government property - every day. Note that the IRS can and does comb through your financial records any damned time they please.

There is no right to privacy - so you will get nowhere in court opposing these acts.

You are adding the term "absolute" to privacy and saying you don't have a right to absolute privacy. Just as you don't have an absolute right to free speech, or absolute right to property, or absolute right to own, and use any guns.

You are also conflating trespass with privacy. If you invite a neighbor to your house or expose information to the public by exposing the contents of your house through a window to the public, then you are exposing information to the public at large. Clearly if you have so exposed your information to the public, that is not private. You are assuming you can put up a billboard on your property with a statement that claims the contents of the house comprise illegal goods that are private, then sue the public for reading your billboard, and/or for putting you in jail for the contents of your house when they put you away.

As with any "discussion" the terms need to be defined. Privacy as I defined it is most certainly protected by the Constitution. Absolute rights are a myth.

 

[RKMBrown]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

Not so much. Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton. That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.

 

[RKMBrown]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

I would only add to your thoughts that in 2001, the CBO published a report that said that if Bush continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt would be paid off by 2006 and we'd have a multi trillion $ surplus by 2011. That’s how close to financial nirvana we came.

Yeah cause that dot com bubble did not burst at all at the very end of Clinton's term. What bubble says PMZ. ROFL you take water carrying to a whole new level PMS.

 

[PMZ]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

I would only add to your thoughts that in 2001, the CBO published a report that said that if Bush continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt would be paid off by 2006 and we'd have a multi trillion $ surplus by 2011. That’s how close to financial nirvana we came.

Yeah cause that dot com bubble did not burst at all at the very end of Clinton's term. What bubble says PMZ. ROFL you take water carrying to a whole new level PMS.

Fuck you too.

The CBO report was written in 2001.

 

[Bern80]

You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts.

What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional, it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.

That's not what you said previously. We already had this conversation and you agreed congress is indeed capable of passing lawas that are unconstitutional.

But they are unenforceable if SCOTUS finds them unconstitutional. The courts cannot adjudicate in favor of them.

That’s by the design of the founders.

That would perhaps be the one flaw in the system. SCOTUS can't strike down congressional legislation without a case being presented against it.

 

[Bern80]

Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all. You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.

The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People." Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.

You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme. That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.

I say let's stick to the source of freedom, democracy.

Democracy is not the source of freedom. Obviously the minority would disagree. The source of freedom is beyond an form of government. Individual freedom is an inalienable human right.

 

[PMZ]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

Not so much. Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton. That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.

The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses. He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.

I agree with your other point. Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.

 

[RKMBrown]

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Honey, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.

The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.

Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.

If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.

Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.

Corporations are groups of people. There is nothing illegal or wrong with using influence to get what you want. For example, would you prohibit the people from protesting or influencing the government to stop a war we did not agree with?

 

[RKMBrown]

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Honey, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.

The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.

Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.

If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.

Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.

The Constitution is the bylaws for government. The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.

And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and that’s why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us. The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.

As I said before, the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.

It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society. Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.

Yes, and the democrat plan is to force deterioration of our society. Each and very year of deterioration making the business challenge more and more difficult. Thus, allowing the government to step in, take control of each and every industry, to save the day for the mess they created.

 

[RKMBrown]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

Not so much. Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton. That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.

The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses. He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.

I agree with your other point. Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.

Government spending, revenue, and regulations are three separate issues. Business behavior by the number of businesses in each of the various industries are still other separate issues.

Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda.

I agree with the "agenda" to be more careful in going forward with Wars against sovereign nations because we don't like their religious beliefs or the products they make or the gangs of thugs that roam in their borders.

 

[kaz]

Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all. You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.

The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People." Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.

You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme. That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.

I say let's stick to the source of freedom, democracy.

Democracy isn't in the Constitution...

 

[PMZ]

Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all. You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.

The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People." Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.

You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme. That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.

I say let's stick to the source of freedom, democracy.

Democracy isn't in the Constitution...

Universal suffrage is definitely in the Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

Not so much. Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton. That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.

The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses. He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.

I agree with your other point. Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.

Government spending, revenue, and regulations are three separate issues. Business behavior by the number of businesses in each of the various industries are still other separate issues.

Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda.

I agree with the "agenda" to be more careful in going forward with Wars against sovereign nations because we don't like their religious beliefs or the products they make or the gangs of thugs that roam in their borders.

" Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda."

Another conservative against accountability.

 

[PMZ]

Honey, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.

The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.

Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.

If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.

Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.

The Constitution is the bylaws for government. The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.

And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and that’s why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us. The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.

As I said before, the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.

It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society. Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.

Yes, and the democrat plan is to force deterioration of our society. Each and very year of deterioration making the business challenge more and more difficult. Thus, allowing the government to step in, take control of each and every industry, to save the day for the mess they created.

Actually what is forcing deterioration, not unexpectedly, is make more money regardless of the cost to others, as the sole rule of business.

It's extremism which never works.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually what is forcing deterioration, not unexpectedly, is make more money regardless of the cost to others, as the sole rule of business.

It's extremism which never works.

Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....