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

[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????

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

Why should taxes be fair if life's not?

You're right. Let's just increase taxes disproportionately and never try to fix any broken system. Let every pothole remain I unfilled we need the sales tax from new tires. Don't worry about those bridges that are getting old and need to be replaced we gotta tax those insurance claims. Hurricane hit New Orleans? They obviously got water to drink look at the streets. Why bother trying to help anybody out? Life's not fair.

 

[PMZ]

Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?

Of course not! You're proud of what you are!

Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?

I don't come off as the village idiot. You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?

Most economists here think like me. I love it here. All except for the village idiots.

 

[PMZ]

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?

it doesnt, The OP was about how much, and I assumed marginally progressive taxation. As I pointed out, 45% in times of peace and 70-90% in times of war would most likely keep our budget balanced.

The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be a war of all against all, and render life nasty, brutish, and short.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.

I think that above comfortable, wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?

I don't come off as the village idiot. You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?

Most economists here think like me. I love it here. All except for the village idiots.

Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression? I think not.

Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll. They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.

The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that above comfortable, wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.

How does that justify taking the money he earned? Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy? The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters. Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it. That's how we got the progressive income tax.

 

[bripat9643]

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.

Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?

it doesnt, The OP was about how much, and I assumed marginally progressive taxation. As I pointed out, 45% in times of peace and 70-90% in times of war would most likely keep our budget balanced.

The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy. The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be a war of all against all, and render life nasty, brutish, and short.

I think not. It's true that states have conquered peoples lacking the machinery of oppression, but that doesn't prove those people will war among themselves. Stateless people's have always evolved means of resolving disputes among themselves.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what? Why should I care why a man wants to be rich so long as he doesn't rob or clonk anyone over the head in his effort to achieve wealth?

 

[PMZ]

I don't come off as the village idiot. You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?

Most economists here think like me. I love it here. All except for the village idiots.

Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression? I think not.

Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll. They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.

The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

Most village idiots think that the Great Recession, which began a year before Obama was elected should be called Obama's Recession.

 

[PMZ]

I think that above comfortable, wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.

How does that justify taking the money he earned? Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy? The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters. Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it. That's how we got the progressive income tax.

I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that above comfortable, wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.

How does that justify taking the money he earned? Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy? The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters. Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it. That's how we got the progressive income tax.

I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.

People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?" How about people who hate others simply because they have money?

What makes you tick?

 

[bripat9643]

Most economists here think like me. I love it here. All except for the village idiots.

Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression? I think not.

Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll. They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.

The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

Most village idiots think that the Great Recession, which began a year before Obama was elected should be called Obama's Recession.

A recession began under Bush, but Obama turned it into a depression.

 

[johnwk]

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
JWK

The above quote actually supports what I said, that there were differing opinions. Pinckney is equating direct taxes to the requisitions of the Articles of Confederation years.
.

"Differing opinions"? His comparison was accurate and not in dispute. And I seen nothing in what I posted which supports your personal idea of tax fairness. As a matter of fact, our Constitution's rule of apportionment is in direct conflict with you view of tax fairness.
Did you miss what I wrote to you?

Actually, we live in a constitutionally limited system of government, and although I appreciate you posting your personal sense of what is "fair", the fact is, our Constitution lays out a fair share formula to be followed whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly. And that formula for direct taxation, turns out to be an equal per capita tax if levied directly upon the people!

The formula is:

State`s population
_________________ X sum being raised = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population



For example, if Congress lays a direct tax on the people of the united states and the people of New York each pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

I take it you do not support our Constitution's command for equal taxation when and if Congress taxes the people directly?


JWK

 

[dcraelin]

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob. Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.

I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what? Why should I care why a man wants to be rich so long as he doesn't rob or clonk anyone over the head in his effort to achieve wealth?

Why should you care about his motivation for wanting progressive taxes then?

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
JWK

The above quote actually supports what I said, that there were differing opinions. Pinckney is equating direct taxes to the requisitions of the Articles of Confederation years.
.

"Differing opinions"? His comparison was accurate and not in dispute. And I seen nothing in what I posted which supports your personal idea of tax fairness. As a matter of fact, our Constitution's rule of apportionment is in direct conflict with you view of tax fairness.
Did you miss what I wrote to you?

somewhere in all that goop you wrote I believe is the old argument that an income tax couldn't be legal according to original constitution. That is wrong as we had one during civil war without any concern by the populace.

Argument was based on idea that direct taxes had to be apportioned. and that income tax was direct tax. It isnt a direct tax under Pinckneys phrase equating to a requisition.

anyway we now have the income tax amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what? Why should I care why a man wants to be rich so long as he doesn't rob or clonk anyone over the head in his effort to achieve wealth?

Why should you care about his motivation for wanting progressive taxes then?

I care for the same reason that it's important to know the motivation of a criminal for committing a crime. It's part of the case against him. However, there is no "case" against the wealthy since they haven't done anything criminal.

The wealthy are not villains. They haven't violated anyone's rights by making money. In fact, they have normally gotten wealthy by provided thousands or even millions with incalculable benefits.

Consider your smartphone. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Steve Jobs. What did he do that justifies looting him for everything he earned?

 

[bripat9643]

"Differing opinions"? His comparison was accurate and not in dispute. And I seen nothing in what I posted which supports your personal idea of tax fairness. As a matter of fact, our Constitution's rule of apportionment is in direct conflict with you view of tax fairness.
Did you miss what I wrote to you?

somewhere in all that goop you wrote I believe is the old argument that an income tax couldn't be legal according to original constitution. That is wrong as we had one during civil war without any concern by the populace.

That was only one of the examples where Abraham Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled his income tax unconstitutional after the war and his dictatorship was over with.

 

[johnwk]

somewhere in all that goop you wrote I believe is the old argument that an income tax couldn't be legal according to original constitution. That is wrong as we had one during civil war without any concern by the populace.

Argument was based on idea that direct taxes had to be apportioned. and that income tax was direct tax. It isnt a direct tax under Pinckneys phrase equating to a requisition.

anyway we now have the income tax amendment.

So now you decide to switch the subject? You previously wrote and I responded to your comment that We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded. I responded to your above comment as follows:

Actually, we live in a constitutionally limited system of government, and although I appreciate you posting your personal sense of what is "fair", the fact is, our Constitution lays out a fair share formula to be followed whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly. And that formula for direct taxation, turns out to be an equal per capita tax if levied directly upon the people!

The formula is:

State`s population
_________________ X sum being raised = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population

Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitution’s rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?



No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Finally, when you find the phrase “income tax” in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.

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)

 

[dcraelin]

Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitution’s rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?

Finally, when you find the phrase “income tax” in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)[/SIZE]

There are two types of taxes in our Constitution, Direct and Indirect.
Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned
Direct taxes do.... or did.

Pinckney equated direct taxes to requisitions on the states. i.e. the federal government would send a bill directly to the state's governor. Using that definition, an income tax would not be considered a direct tax. Other framers also held that view.

You are correct to the extent that most of the framers would not have been familiar with income taxes as I believe only a couple of European nations were using them at the time, so it is open to debate weather or not they would have supported them. But during the civil war an income tax was enacted without worry about unconstitutionality.

The POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO was one of the most ridiculed Supreme Court cases in history.....There was a nationwide outcry on it, which led to the introduction of the 16th amendment, one of the shortest tersest amendments in the constitution. This was passed by 3/4ths plus of the States legislatures and represented the will of the vast majority of the American people at the time.

 

[PMZ]

How does that justify taking the money he earned? Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy? The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters. Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it. That's how we got the progressive income tax.

I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.

People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?" How about people who hate others simply because they have money?

What makes you tick?

No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.

People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?" How about people who hate others simply because they have money?

What makes you tick?

No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.

How am I "dysfunctional?"

For you're information, I'm not a conservative. I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist. I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.

BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious. You're a Stalinist. How much more extreme can you get?

 

[PMZ]

People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?" How about people who hate others simply because they have money?

What makes you tick?

No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.

How am I "dysfunctional?"

For you're information, I'm not a conservative. I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist. I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.

BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious. You're a Stalinist. How much more extreme can you get?

I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.

From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.

Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.

No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.

Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.

 

[ShawnChris13]

No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.

How am I "dysfunctional?"

For you're information, I'm not a conservative. I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist. I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.

BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious. You're a Stalinist. How much more extreme can you get?

I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.

From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.

Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.

No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.

Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.

Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.

At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.