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

[AmazonTania]

It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.

Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.

So, as a country, we use our taxation policy to counter that natural economic system tendency, in order to keep society stable.

What the wealthy would prefer of course is to take advantage of the system to gather wealth and just keep it. And hope that the collapse of society occurs after they die.

So the question, "what is enough" has to be asked of everyone and consider both the upward and downward forces.

In a famous poll, Americans were asked what wealth distribution was ideal, and what they thought was where we actually are. They were aghast to see where we actually are compared to both of those.

Umm The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue so that government can perform essential functions.
Taxation is NOT for the creation of stability or to make things "even"...
That's a lot of crap.
Of course your idea fits the liberal template perfectly. That the purpose of taxation is to 'take away' that which makes those who do not like wealth or the wealthy, feel comfortable.
You people see taxation as a way to modify or control behavior, pick winners and losers and to punish those who irritate you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up.

of course thats really really stupid since Gates and Jobs cant get wealthy without distributing goods or wealth downward!!

Henry Ford made $1.29 a car by giving far far more wealth to the millions and millions who bought his cars!! Capitalism distributes wealth down which explains why the poor now have Iphones, access to state of the art medical care, and $12,000 per capita per year year in free public education.


]

Henry Ford, Jobs, and Gates never built a thing. They owned the factories that other people used to create wealth from their labor. The value of the wealth workers created then allowed the workers to buy the wealth created by other workers.

Ford had one good idea that created all of his wealth. Pay the workers enough to afford cars.

Jobs was a megalomaniac who happened to befriend Wozniak at a time when nobody else had yet envisioned personal computers. Same with Gates. If they hadn't done what they did someone else surly would have.

Spoken like someone who has no experience with or respect for working between the ears, instead of with the muscles.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.

LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.

Employment and unemployment is a function of business, not government.

Whoa!!! I thought we needed Congress to pass jobs bills in order to have government create jobs?
Now you reverse yourself and claim employment and unemployment are functions of business....
Make up your mind.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It depends on what is in the bill. The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself. If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.

However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?

Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.

LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.

Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?

 

[noose4]

It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.

Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?

Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.

LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.

Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?

All funded with tax dollars. Tax dollars taken from the private sector.
Simply creating make work federal jobs does NOT improve the economy.
Increasing federal employment as a course of job creation is simply moving the chess pieces around the board.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.

Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?

Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.

 

[noose4]

Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?

Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.

Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.

Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.

Wow. With insightful business acumen like that, you must have an MBA . . . from Joe Bob's School of Finance and Auto Repair.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.

LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.

Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?

Sure there were temporary jobs created which is far preferable to handing out welfare. At least the people were able to keep their dignity until the economy righted itself and private sector jobs came back.

But look at the legacy of that. It so accelerated the rolling snowball of government power, government cost, and government dependency that has been gainng momentum since the Teddy Roosevelt administration that it now overshadows all of American economics.

And there is growing sentiment among historians of that era that Roosevelt's policies did more harm than good and actually extended the depression:

. . . .But the political crisis was caused by the double-digit unemployment, and in my new book, FDR’s Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003), I report mounting evidence developed by dozens of economists, at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, that double-digit unemployment was prolonged by FDR’s own New Deal policies.
Fresh Debate About FDR's New Deal | Cato Institute

The government we have feeds upon itself and drains more and more resources from the private sector economy every year that passes. Government no longer exists to help anybody but only to perpetuate itself. And only those who help government perpetuate itself receive any benefit from the government these days.

A compassionate government would make itself small, lean, efficient, and effective and release as much resources as possible back to the people and let the free market do its job.

There really can be no 'fair share' of taxes for any demographic when most of the taxes go to fuel an ever bloated, inefficient, ineffective, but ever more authoritarian federal government.

 

[noose4]

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.

Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.

Wow. With insightful business acumen like that, you must have an MBA . . . from Joe Bob's School of Finance and Auto Repair.

And still more aware than you. Are you really trying to act like you are a big time intellectual while posting on the USMB boards?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.

Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.

Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?

 

[noose4]

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.

Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.

Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?

In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.

Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?

Sure there were temporary jobs created which is far preferable to handing out welfare. At least the people were able to keep their dignity until the economy righted itself and private sector jobs came back.

But look at the legacy of that. It so accelerated the rolling snowball of government power, government cost, and government dependency that has been gainng momentum since the Teddy Roosevelt administration that it now overshadows all of American economics.

And there is growing sentiment among historians of that era that Roosevelt's policies did more harm than good and actually extended the depression:

. . . .But the political crisis was caused by the double-digit unemployment, and in my new book, FDR’s Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003), I report mounting evidence developed by dozens of economists, at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, that double-digit unemployment was prolonged by FDR’s own New Deal policies.
Fresh Debate About FDR's New Deal | Cato Institute

The government we have feeds upon itself and drains more and more resources from the private sector economy every year that passes. Government no longer exists to help anybody but only to perpetuate itself. And only those who help government perpetuate itself receive any benefit from the government these days.

A compassionate government would make itself small, lean, efficient, and effective and release as much resources as possible back to the people and let the free market do its job.

There really can be no 'fair share' of taxes for any demographic when most of the taxes go to fuel an ever bloated, inefficient, ineffective, but ever more authoritarian federal government.

Once again, you have shown that Mr Foxfyre is a pretty lucky guy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.

Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?

In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.

Dude, the only way you could be the smartest person in the room is if you were alone.
And what the fuck does the concept of black and white vs grey have to do with anything?
Since you opened the door, you people live in a world of grey because it allows you to exist in a world without rules. Without right and wrong. Without morals or standards.
But anyway, back to the subject matter of your anti business rantings... Stay on point.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

What a stupid fricken thread

 

[thereisnospoon]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

What a stupid fricken thread

It's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.
What is "fair share"...Just a number will do.
None of you will touch it.

 

[ilia25]

The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.

Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.

 

[ilia25]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

What a stupid fricken thread

It's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.
What is "fair share"...Just a number will do.
None of you will touch it.

Have you read the thread?