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

[johnwk]

Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

And just what is the history of the 16th Amendment?




In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [that’s you and me] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.

During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

But what these cunning scumbag con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff has ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which your pal Roosevelt was behind __ the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942

Roosevelt’s class warfare tax expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelt’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread which poor working people have earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by progressives on Capitol Hill to maintain a captive voting block!

JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[bripat9643]

Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

You're not fooling anyone. You're a lib.

Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money? Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."

 

[bripat9643]

No such thing as fair.

Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.

No such thing as fair. You get more, you pay more. Not as much more as you get, but some more.

No like? Find a better deal. The ultimate consumerism.

Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either. Do you also endorse that?

How about homosexuals? Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"

Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.

 

[Gadawg73]

Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?

They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy. Whether you think that's important is irrelevant. No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.

Here's the simple truth. I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way. You never will. Dream on.

That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "FUCK YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.

 

[PMZ]

They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy. Whether you think that's important is irrelevant. No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.

Here's the simple truth. I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way. You never will. Dream on.

That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "FUCK YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.

I agree that long term should be our goal. That’s the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable. We need solutions, not do nothing. We owe that to future generations.

 

[dcraelin]

Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

You're not fooling anyone. You're a lib.
Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money? Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

 

[PMZ]

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

You're not fooling anyone. You're a lib.
Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money? Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

There is one real solution to our current economic situation. Jobs. Business growth.

To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused, on business.

 

[dcraelin]

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

There is one real solution to our current economic situation. Jobs. Business growth.

To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused, on business.

Well, perhaps, but government focus on jobs can result in graft and corruption. Most "economic development" has devolved into corruption. TIF districts (tax increment financing) is one of the biggest examples. It is just a handout to developers who cant handle a market economy. California, where that idiotic practice began, has now ended the practice which has helped that state tremendously.

Stadiums are another monstrous piece of graft justified as "economic development" although all honest studies show they hurt more than help.

The best economic development practice that government can do is run cheaply and efficiently without subsidies to corporate beggars and parasites.

 

[itfitzme]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

What does matter is not the tax rate but rather what the govt comsumes and produces. It is that labor utilization that makes all the difference. Crowding out is the significant feature. If the private sector economy can absorb more labor and the reduction in govt output doesn't take away some necessary support, then it is that labor utilizatiom that really matters.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

lol

 

[PMZ]

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

There is one real solution to our current economic situation. Jobs. Business growth.

To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused, on business.

Well, perhaps, but government focus on jobs can result in graft and corruption. Most "economic development" has devolved into corruption. TIF districts (tax increment financing) is one of the biggest examples. It is just a handout to developers who cant handle a market economy. California, where that idiotic practice began, has now ended the practice which has helped that state tremendously.

Stadiums are another monstrous piece of graft justified as "economic development" although all honest studies show they hurt more than help.

The best economic development practice that government can do is run cheaply and efficiently without subsidies to corporate beggars and parasites.

Jobs are the business of business, not government.

 

[itfitzme]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

lol

In other words, you can't do the math or present anything that proves otherwise. You simply have some stupid rule that you've memorize without knowing how the economy functions, even at the most basic effect of inflation.

 

[PMZ]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

What does matter is not the tax rate but rather what the govt comsumes and produces. It is that labor utilization that makes all the difference. Crowding out is the significant feature. If the private sector economy can absorb more labor and the reduction in govt output doesn't take away some necessary support, then it is that labor utilizatiom that really matters.

Good analysis. What drives business growth are new products, often the result of new technology.

Our current business miasma is the result of business followers hanging on to extraordinary profits to reap personal gain from worker output.

We will be stuck in this place that is great for them but bad for everyone else until we fire the bean counters and replace them with product and technology and customer people.

Our job would be easy if they were government people. We could unelected them. But, as business followers are essentially accountable only to other business followers, they are a tougher nut to crack. The problem being that customers have the power but are not effectively organized to use it.

Until that problem gets solved, we will be stuck here with high corporate profits and high unemployment.

Got any ideas?

 

[PMZ]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

lol

In other words, you can't do the math or present anything that proves otherwise. You simply have some stupid rule that you've memorize without knowing how the economy functions, even at the most basic effect of inflation.

It's futile to expect anything more from him.

 

[bripat9643]

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

You're not fooling anyone. You're a lib.
Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money? Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.

So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

 

[bripat9643]

There is one real solution to our current economic situation. Jobs. Business growth.

To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused, on business.

Well, perhaps, but government focus on jobs can result in graft and corruption. Most "economic development" has devolved into corruption. TIF districts (tax increment financing) is one of the biggest examples. It is just a handout to developers who cant handle a market economy. California, where that idiotic practice began, has now ended the practice which has helped that state tremendously.

Stadiums are another monstrous piece of graft justified as "economic development" although all honest studies show they hurt more than help.

The best economic development practice that government can do is run cheaply and efficiently without subsidies to corporate beggars and parasites.

Jobs are the business of business, not government.

Then why do liberals politicians always take credit for creating jobs? Government doesn't create jobs, but it can sure do a good job of destroying them. Raising taxes, increasing regulations and targeting certain industries for elimination destroys jobs and makes the business climate more difficult and uncertain.

That's what your hero Obama has done.

 

[PMZ]

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

You're not fooling anyone. You're a lib.
Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money? Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.

So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

BriPat hates solutions other than his one.

Richer rich and poorer poor. One solution fits all.

 

[bripat9643]

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. This is, of course, one of two effects. When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.

You sure like saying "well established" a lot. You're putting the cart before the horse. Increases in output lead to increases in spendable income. There's no way to increase spendable income by fiat. All the government can do is create additional money which only serves to drive inflation.

All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

Tax cuts don't increase the money supply. However, one thing they do is put money in the hands of people who produce and take it out of the hands of useless government parasites. That can only have a beneficial effect on production. Government creation of money is the only cause of inflation, period.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.

ROFL! Of course they do. How can siphoning off the wages of producers into the hands of moochers and looters not have an effect on the economy? It has a vast negative effect.

Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

Huh? If anyone can figure that mess out, please explain it to me. By "efficiency" what you really mean is productivity. The most important factor in increasing productivity is the amount of capital per capita. increasing taxes siphons off money that would be invested in additional capital and sends it to moochers and parasites to consume.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.

I don't see the math for that equation.

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

Again, I don't grock your gobbledygook. There is a big difference between increasing the money supply and increasing government spending or decreasing tax rates. The idea that the magnitude of tax rates means nothing is ludicrous.

What does matter is not the tax rate but rather what the govt comsumes and produces.

Now you're on more solid ground, but then you lose your way again.

It is that labor utilization that makes all the difference. Crowding out is the significant feature. If the private sector economy can absorb more labor and the reduction in govt output doesn't take away some necessary support, then it is that labor utilizatiom that really matters.

Government "output" is virtually zero. Government hands out checks, but it doesn't produce anything of note. You're also forgetting the amount of capital per capita.

 

[bripat9643]

The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.

a couple of things on JWKs posts. The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.

So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

BriPat hates solutions other than his one.

Richer rich and poorer poor. One solution fits all.

A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.

 

[PMZ]

I think the impact on the economy will be greater. The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class. Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.

So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything. Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.

BriPat hates solutions other than his one.

Richer rich and poorer poor. One solution fits all.

A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.

What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.

Superheroes?