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

[PMZ]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

 

[bripat9643]

It's actually all over the Web. Do a Google image search for it.

And what does that prove. If I Google "Bigfoot" I get 17 million hits. I doubt your source gets that many. So Bigfoot is more credible than your source.

Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.

"Ignorance" must be a euphemism for "irrefutable logic and facts."

 

[ShawnChris13]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

The argument life is not fair isn't an argument. That's a cop out. You might as well say "I don't know."

Wealth inequality is such a huge problem because of unfair taxes in which all the loopholes are offered to the wealthy. So yes, definitely "life is not fair." But you know what could make life a little more fair? Fair taxes.

 

[PMZ]

And what does that prove. If I Google "Bigfoot" I get 17 million hits. I doubt your source gets that many. So Bigfoot is more credible than your source.

Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.

"Ignorance" must be a euphemism for "irrefutable logic and facts."

But it's not.

 

[PMZ]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

The argument life is not fair isn't an argument. That's a cop out. You might as well say "I don't know."

Wealth inequality is such a huge problem because of unfair taxes in which all the loopholes are offered to the wealthy. So yes, definitely "life is not fair." But you know what could make life a little more fair? Fair taxes.

Fair is a completely subjective concept.

I'm sure that the folks on the short end of the stick would accept your "fair" taxes if you could also make life fair.

Alas, you cannot.

So the folks who benefitted from breaks that allowed them wealth are going to have to share some of their good fortune.

 

[bripat9643]

This, like all your posts, is what you have to believe, in order for all of your opinions to be right.

Here's another possibility. All of your opinions are wrong because they stem from Fox Opinions Republican sponsored propaganda. So, they only represent what the GOP wishes to be true.

This would be easy for you to figure out, but nobody believes that you ever will.

I'm much more tolerant. All I care is that people like you who have fallen into the cult stay out of government.

See? You just proved it again. Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.

Your truth is. The point is that your truth is not reality, but what you wish was. It's a self serving delusion that would make you happy if it were to become true, but, in fact, doesn't correlate with what actually happens in the real world.

It would have been much simpler for you to just say "Nuh Uhn!"

That’s why it is essential that people who share your delusion, who got it from the same as you did, apparently, be voted out of, never in to, government. And why the elections that ignored that, led to such disastrous results for America in the recent past.

Once again, truth is precisely the opposite of what you post.

Our country needs to be run in accordance with the reality of how people behave, what problems exist, what problems are the greatest threats to the lives of we, the people who are in charge of government, what future we want, what is known today and will be learned tomorrow, our role in the world, our security, etc.

Being consistent with reality is what makes plans and actions effective.

True (for once). However, that is precisely why we need to kick your ilk out of office. You and your ilk are the reason for disasters like Obamacare.

 

[bripat9643]

Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.

"Ignorance" must be a euphemism for "irrefutable logic and facts."

But it's not.

Based on your posts, it is.

 

[PMZ]

See? You just proved it again. Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.

Your truth is. The point is that your truth is not reality, but what you wish was. It's a self serving delusion that would make you happy if it were to become true, but, in fact, doesn't correlate with what actually happens in the real world.

It would have been much simpler for you to just say "Nuh Uhn!"

That’s why it is essential that people who share your delusion, who got it from the same as you did, apparently, be voted out of, never in to, government. And why the elections that ignored that, led to such disastrous results for America in the recent past.

Once again, truth is precisely the opposite of what you post.

Our country needs to be run in accordance with the reality of how people behave, what problems exist, what problems are the greatest threats to the lives of we, the people who are in charge of government, what future we want, what is known today and will be learned tomorrow, our role in the world, our security, etc.

Being consistent with reality is what makes plans and actions effective.

True (for once). However, that is precisely why we need to kick your ilk out of office. You and your ilk are the reason for disasters like Obamacare.

You did that in 2000, remember? Our great great great grandchildren will still be paying your unpaid bills.

And now that government has done what it can to recover from Bush's Great Recession, we're still waiting for business to fix what they threw away. Millions of American careers.

 

[bripat9643]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect. Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

The argument life is not fair isn't an argument. That's a cop out. You might as well say "I don't know."

Wealth inequality is such a huge problem because of unfair taxes in which all the loopholes are offered to the wealthy. So yes, definitely "life is not fair." But you know what could make life a little more fair? Fair taxes.

Fair is a completely subjective concept.

I'm sure that the folks on the short end of the stick would accept your "fair" taxes if you could also make life fair.

Alas, you cannot.

So the folks who benefitted from breaks that allowed them wealth are going to have to share some of their good fortune.

Punishing successful people will come to no avail. I think a great step to granting access for success for the people on the short end of the stick would be to level the playing field.

Giving the government funds to provide programs so filled with fraud is no solution for the poor. Focus that money on education and public infrastructure. Then you will see how people with work ethic can rise to the top. Opportunity is the only thing they need to achieve success.

 

[PMZ]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect. Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.

If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in, I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.

 

[Gadawg73]

The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?

 

[PMZ]

The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?

Perhaps you should tell them to stop.

 

[bripat9643]

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?



No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect. Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.

If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in, I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.

I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history. You are.

 

[Gadawg73]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

 

[Gadawg73]

The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?

Perhaps you should tell them to stop.

LOL, and they would listen.
Stop the incentives for them to have more children when they can not properly take care of the ones they have.
Bring back where there is SHAME when one acts irresponsible in society and there are real consequences for the ADULTS that are the ones acting irresponsible.
Because what we have is now is a growing class of citizens raising children in poverty because of their own actions.
That you fully support, reward and encourage.

 

[PMZ]

Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?



No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect. Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.



Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.

If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in, I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.

I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history. You are.

Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.

 

[PMZ]

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?

Life is not fair, why should taxes be?

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality. Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????

Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.

Why should taxes be fair if life's not?

 

[PMZ]

The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?

Perhaps you should tell them to stop.

LOL, and they would listen.
Stop the incentives for them to have more children when they can not properly take care of the ones they have.
Bring back where there is SHAME when one acts irresponsible in society and there are real consequences for the ADULTS that are the ones acting irresponsible.
Because what we have is now is a growing class of citizens raising children in poverty because of their own actions.
That you fully support, reward and encourage.

I don't think that there's anything preventing you from going on such a campaign.

 

[johnwk]

I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.

The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.

With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”
Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

There was disagreement over the meaning of some of the terms on taxes in the constitution. The Nation passed an income tax during the civil war without any concern as to constitutionality. Read Kevin Phillips Arrogant Capital on how many politicians are subservient to bankers and actually dont want to pay down debt.

I'm not sure how your post relates to what is posted above. But one thing is certain, there was no disagreement among those who ratified the Constitution with respect to direct taxes being required to be apportioned. But don't take my word, let our founder's speak for themselves:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


Additionally, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), in which the Court stated,

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”


And this is once again confirmed in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Finally, Justice Roberts, in the Obamacare case also confirms The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)