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

[Polk]

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.

Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.

But how are you able to provide that service? You would be hard-pressed to name a service that did not involve some amount of public investment in your ability to provide that service.

 

[itfitzme]

Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.

The economy doesn't necessitate profit.

"Only in the short run can a firm in a perfectly competitive market make an economic profit"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)

 

[PMZ]

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.

Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.

You can then exchange that effort for goods and services created by others. One of those obligations is for the services that government provides.

If they are not worth their cost to you, you have an obligation to yourself and your family to find a better deal elsewhere.

Just like you would do for all of the other costs in your life.

 

[ShawnChris13]

That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.

Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.

But how are you able to provide that service? You would be hard-pressed to name a service that did not involve some amount of public investment in your ability to provide that service.

I could work for a farmer and it wouldn't be based on a public service. Just because the government has forced itself irresponsibly into economics does not mean that the government is responsible for all economic transactions.

 

[originalthought]

Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?

First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.

With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.

Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?

No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system. Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them. And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.

And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud. The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace. From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.

The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes. The question is how to optimize things.

To begin with, monopolies are illegal. The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.

We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply. The reason is to optimize the utility of our money. Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy. Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.

Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits. A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.

Wow, another retard alert!!! Why are you spouting off with social monetary system and standard of living. I didn't mention any of that, I asked a simple hypothetical, do u agree or disagree, and you respond with "No". No what? It's very easy to see how has the ability to use their brain. You can't even answer a question.

You are the same as PMZ. Full of contradictions. You say monopolies are bad, and then shoot off talking about how good the Federal Reserve!!! LMAO! It's a monopoly. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US. Then U talk about how bad private banks are. Do u know who is controlling the Fed Res? The private Banks you moron!

 

[Polk]

Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.

While the pie grows over time, that growth is:
a) not widely distributed
b) not that rapid over time
c) nonexistant at any fixed point in time

 

[PMZ]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

 

[Polk]

Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.

But how are you able to provide that service? You would be hard-pressed to name a service that did not involve some amount of public investment in your ability to provide that service.

I could work for a farmer and it wouldn't be based on a public service. Just because the government has forced itself irresponsibly into economics does not mean that the government is responsible for all economic transactions.

I never said the government is "responsible" for all economic transactions, but there is certainly a government role in all transactions. In the case of a farmer, you've got roads to transport the food to market and police and courts that prevent thieves/create a way to punish them. And that's before getting into farm subsidies and tariffs.

 

[PMZ]

No. You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.

Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?



State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.



State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.



JWK





“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 ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution

Republics are countries not governed by monarchs. The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.

You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I "...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."

Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?


JWK

You tried to redefine "republic".

 

[itfitzme]

The fundamental misconception is the belief that lower taxes would necessarily result in increased standard of living and purchasing power. That's is a ridiculous notion. The only way that lower taxes results in a higher standard of living and purchasing power is if there is a disparity between taxes. If I pay less taxes than you, then I can buy more. As soon as we both pay the same taxes, the tax level is meaningless. Prices are always a percentage of the money supply available for purchasing. In short,

Σ((P/M)*Q)=1

It should be obvious that simply decreasing the tax rate across the board doesn't simply increase output. Output is the result of labor and efficiency of that labor.

Taxes simply "tag along" the flow. They adjust in accordance with that flow, providing an excellent signal as to the need for additional public resources.

 

[orogenicman]

If you object, then report me. Otherwise, fuck off.

It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.

A middle finger is hardly abusive.

It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.

 

[Polk]

Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.

And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63

"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit “democracy“, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:

“…exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.”


Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?


JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson

Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.

Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.

As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.

Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.

No. You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.

Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?



State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.



State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.



JWK





“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 ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution

The Constitution does not require "one dollar, one vote". Moreover, doing so would swallow whole the idea of "one man, one vote".

 

[Indeependent]

All political parties in the US ignore border security which inundates our nation with a cheap blue collar workforce and they submit to the mantra of Americans as being Stupid and Lazy and thus inundate our nation with business-visas.

The ignorant response of those driven to the bottom if "Fair share", whilst it SHOULD be "Get rid of the illegals and send the business visas home."

 

[itfitzme]

First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.

With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.

Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?

No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system. Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them. And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.

And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud. The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace. From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.

The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes. The question is how to optimize things.

To begin with, monopolies are illegal. The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.

We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply. The reason is to optimize the utility of our money. Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy. Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.

Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits. A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.

Wow, another retard alert!!! Why are you spouting off with social monetary system and standard of living. I didn't mention any of that, I asked a simple hypothetical, do u agree or disagree, and you respond with "No". No what? It's very easy to see how has the ability to use their brain. You can't even answer a question.

You are the same as PMZ. Full of contradictions. You say monopolies are bad, and then shoot off talking about how good the Federal Reserve!!! LMAO! It's a monopoly. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US. Then U talk about how bad private banks are. Do u know who is controlling the Fed Res? The private Banks you moron!

I explained it very clearly. Your inability to grasp it is beyond my control. I am sorry you are a moron.

Here, read about anti trust laws.

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.

Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)

Often, governments will try to intervene in uncompetitive markets to make them more competitive. Antitrust (US) or competition (elsewhere) laws were created to prevent powerful firms from using their economic power to artificially create the barriers to entry they need to protect their economic profits.

If a government feels it is impractical to have a competitive market – such as in the case of a natural monopoly – it will sometimes try to regulate the existing uncompetitive market by controlling the price firms charge for their product

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

 

[PMZ]

All political parties in the US ignore border security which inundates our nation with a cheap blue collar workforce and they submit to the mantra of Americans as being Stupid and Lazy and thus inundate our nation with business-visas.

The ignorant response of those driven to the bottom if "Fair share", whilst it SHOULD be "Get rid of the illegals and send the business visas home."

Businesses giving away American jobs takes many forms. Recruiting cheap labor across the border is only one of them.

Now that those efforts by business have created permanent unemployment here, there is no longer benefit to the recruiting. They have the American workforce by the short ones.

 

[originalthought]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

Well, when you have people [YOU] spouting off things like, "The only preaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."

 

[RKMBrown]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

Well, when you have people [YOU] spouting off things like, "The only preaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."

PMZ is just a Troll.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

It comes from debating retards like you.

 

[PMZ]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."

I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.

No, it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".

 

[bripat9643]

If a government feels it is impractical to have a competitive market – such as in the case of a natural monopoly – it will sometimes try to regulate the existing uncompetitive market by controlling the price firms charge for their product

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

Your belief that anti-trust laws actually prevent monopolies is comical. What they really do is outlaw competition.