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

What's the "fair share?"


  • Total voters
    113
Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true, MUST be.

This is pernicious ignorance. Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining.

The essential raw material for conservatism.


What "hole" is that, PMS? Are you claiming my math is wrong? Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's? You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims. I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.

How many years, numbnuts, was the Model T sold? What happened to the old ones when new ones replaced them? What was the impact of the Ford payroll on the rest of the economy? How many employees benefited over the years?

One thing is clear. If you were Henry, Ford would be an unknown name today.

IF an employee bought a new one every year it would have to have been sold for 40 years for the employees to buy the entire stock. The Model 'T' was sold from 1908 to 1926. A its peak of production in 1925 Ford sold 2 million Model 'T's. How many of those do you suppose his work force purchased?

Face it, your story is a fairy tale. It's not true. The impact of the Ford payroll on the economy is irrelevant. The only question here is whether Ford could make a profit by paying his workers enough to buy all his cars. That claim is clearly false. It's a union myth used to justify their extortionist wage demands.
 
You are required to be a responsible citizen. You may not like it, but we've established minimum standards for the privilege of living here. But you are a free citizen of the world. Shop around. Compare. Research.

Again PMS, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself.

I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"

Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.

I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.

And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate, can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.

I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home, benefit.

But that's not what we are doing. There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity. The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?
 
Again PMS, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself.

I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"

Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.

I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.

And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate, can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.

I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home, benefit.

But that's not what we are doing. There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity. The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?

I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
 
I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"

Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.

I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.

And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate, can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.

I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home, benefit.

But that's not what we are doing. There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity. The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?

I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.

Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
 
Last edited:
Example:
Offer to two kids 10bucks to cut your grass. If one accepts call him a greedy jerk and give five bucks to the other kid right away telling the first kid that was an advance on his taxes. Let's see what happens and whether or not either will take the job to cut your grass the next week.
 
I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"

Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.

I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.

And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate, can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.

I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home, benefit.

But that's not what we are doing. There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity. The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?

I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.

Tax laws are no more an "obligation" than turning over your cash to an armed robber is an obligation. Your theories about wealth inequality and social ills are pure communist bullshit. government causes almost all the ills in our society that are humanely solvable. Giving the government more money will only exacerbate these problems, not solve them. If wealth inequality is "unstable," then the problem will shortly cure itself, or don't you understand the meaning of the term "unstable?"
 
But that's not what we are doing. There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity. The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?

I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.

Tax laws are no more an "obligation" than turning over your cash to an armed robber is an obligation. Your theories about wealth inequality and social ills are pure communist bullshit. government causes almost all the ills in our society that are humanely solvable. Giving the government more money will only exacerbate these problems, not solve them. If wealth inequality is "unstable," then the problem will shortly cure itself, or don't you understand the meaning of the term "unstable?"

Unfortunate for the American worker the American corporate way of "stabilizing" the unduly high rate of pay they had to shell out has been to move operations to china and india where they can find workers willing to work for a bowl of rice a day. It will take some time before the unstable situation of billions of cheap workers on the market stabilizes, and I don't think we'll like very much were we end up after that scale has balanced. We got so fat dumb and happy we forgot that 40k a year might be poverty for the USA but is living like kings the 3rd world.
 
But that's not what we are doing. There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity. The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?

I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.

Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?

Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
 
I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.

Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?

Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.

You completely missed most of the questions.

To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?

Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?

Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k. If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that? I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?
 
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly disagree. The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is, in fact, currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme, unstable wealth inequality, and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.

Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?

Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.

So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff? You just enunciated the morality of a thug.
 
"The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"

And that assumption has never been violated

True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

The Supreme Court also gave us Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu vs. US, and Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Only a leftist imbecile could say, "The Supreme Court says it, so it must be right and true and good!"

And five bucks says you have no idea what any of these decisions were without looking them up.
 
True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

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

Because unlike PMS, you have a functioning brain.
 
What "hole" is that, PMS? Are you claiming my math is wrong? Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's? You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims. I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.

How many years, numbnuts, was the Model T sold? What happened to the old ones when new ones replaced them? What was the impact of the Ford payroll on the rest of the economy? How many employees benefited over the years?

One thing is clear. If you were Henry, Ford would be an unknown name today.

IF an employee bought a new one every year it would have to have been sold for 40 years for the employees to buy the entire stock. The Model 'T' was sold from 1908 to 1926. A its peak of production in 1925 Ford sold 2 million Model 'T's. How many of those do you suppose his work force purchased?

Face it, your story is a fairy tale. It's not true. The impact of the Ford payroll on the economy is irrelevant. The only question here is whether Ford could make a profit by paying his workers enough to buy all his cars. That claim is clearly false. It's a union myth used to justify their extortionist wage demands.

It's a well known fact despite your arithmetic and defense of paying wealth creators as little as possible. I think those facts explain your failure. And the failure of all those who believe that it's possible to shrink to success. Send your jobs and therefore customers to China and wonder where your success went.
 
Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?

Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.

You completely missed most of the questions.

To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?

Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?

Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k. If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that? I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?

But the government didn't say that, did they. We need to get the revenue to pay Bush's unpaid bills by raising tax revenues until, like a business, we start losing "customers". I predict that's a long way off.
 
Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?

Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.

So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff? You just enunciated the morality of a thug.

They lucked out by being born here. Luck isn't free.
 
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.

Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else. What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?

The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.

:lmao:
 
Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave? Why do you ignore history? Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates? Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve? Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?

Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.

You completely missed most of the questions.

To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?

Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?

Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k. If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that? I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?

They sent middle class job to China. "They", those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave. That would be inconvenient. They just harvested their workers careers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top