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

[bripat9643]

I see that you have no argument that life is fair. Of course not. It's a childhood fantasy. We all know that.

And don't give me the standard conservative BS that you'd help the people that folks like you keep poor voluntarily but don't want to through taxes.

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth. It just can't get more extreme then that.

Why can't the wealthy back off now. Is it really essential for them to have all of it? What would they even do with 15% more?

I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?

And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:

roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?

Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.

But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).

So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.

So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

 

[PMZ]

I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?

And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:

roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?

Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.

But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).

So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.

So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?

 

[itfitzme]

I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?

And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:

roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?

Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.

But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).

So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.

So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

Here is the IRS tax tables.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

They apply to everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

Here is the IRS tax tables.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

They apply to everyone.

Only fools are buying that crap. Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.

What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color? The darker the color, the more you pay.

 

[itfitzme]

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

Here is the IRS tax tables.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

They apply to everyone.

Only fools are buying that crap. Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.

What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color? The darker the color, the more you pay.

Income level isn't an intrinsic property of people.

The money supply is a social tool used to make the economy efficient. It is better than bartering.

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize". That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.

 

[PMZ]

Here is the IRS tax tables.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

They apply to everyone.

Only fools are buying that crap. Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.

What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color? The darker the color, the more you pay.

Income level isn't an intrinsic property of people.

The money supply is a social tool used to make the economy efficient. It is better than bartering.

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize". That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.

BriPat is unable to learn. He's stuck where he is. Forever.

 

[itfitzme]

Only fools are buying that crap. Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.

What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color? The darker the color, the more you pay.

Income level isn't an intrinsic property of people.

The money supply is a social tool used to make the economy efficient. It is better than bartering.

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize". That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.

BriPat is unable to learn. He's stuck where he is. Forever.

The problem is that I've seen no objective measure of this "penalized" at a macro level. Spot taxes can be demonstrated as such. But income taxes have no demonstratable indication of this "penalized". It is all within the context of an essentially closed macro economy.

The problem arrises from picking and choosing from macro and micro theory. Classical macroeconomics, when taken in completion, demonstrates that all taxes do, being across board, is change the nominal prices. The typical response is the stupid, "then let's taxes everyone at 100%" That just demonstrates no actual economic understanding as economics is, if nothing else, at the margin. And there is not demonstratable empirical evidence to support this "lowing tax margins" bs.

The money supply and taxes should be whatever they should be to optimize the performance of the markets. Why would we do any differently?

 

[bripat9643]

So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?

Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?

 

[PMZ]

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?

Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?

Yes.

 

[Listening]

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize". That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.

Subjective or not, it is certainly one way to look at things.

I don't believe people look at the rich and say "We are going to make you pay a penalty for being rich".

I do believe people look at the rich and say "You should pay a higher percentage of your income (when I say rich...I mean high income earners) towards taxes".

In effect, they do pay something of a penalty for making more money.

 

[Listening]

If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone. Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.

But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?

Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?

You need a copy of Asshole from RosettaStone in order to understand this fool.

 

[bripat9643]

But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?

Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?

Yes.

The only thing it conveyed is proof that you're an imbecile.

 

[dcraelin]

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize". That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.

Subjective or not, it is certainly one way to look at things.
I don't believe people look at the rich and say "We are going to make you pay a penalty for being rich".
I do believe people look at the rich and say "You should pay a higher percentage of your income (when I say rich...I mean high income earners) towards taxes".
In effect, they do pay something of a penalty for making more money.

a lot of the rich get rich due to government interference in the market. Movie stars and singers benefit from protectionist copyright law. Big corporations patent the most idiotic of "innovations". The justice department looks the other way on mergers and acquisitions that are monopolistic. Big corporations dont allow say-on-pay to their shareholders. Tax loopholes and shelters to no end. Finance people benefit from lower rates on capital gains. Clean up all of this and the differences between the super-rich and the rest of us would narrow, But their would still be the ability to make money from having money, to 'put your money to work for you", this should be taxed higher than wage rates in my opinion.

 

[PMZ]

Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?

Yes.

The only thing it conveyed is proof that you're an imbecile.

That's the only thing that it conveyed to you.

 

[PMZ]

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize". That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.

Subjective or not, it is certainly one way to look at things.
I don't believe people look at the rich and say "We are going to make you pay a penalty for being rich".
I do believe people look at the rich and say "You should pay a higher percentage of your income (when I say rich...I mean high income earners) towards taxes".
In effect, they do pay something of a penalty for making more money.

a lot of the rich get rich due to government interference in the market. Movie stars and singers benefit from protectionist copyright law. Big corporations patent the most idiotic of "innovations". The justice department looks the other way on mergers and acquisitions that are monopolistic. Big corporations dont allow say-on-pay to their shareholders. Tax loopholes and shelters to no end. Finance people benefit from lower rates on capital gains. Clean up all of this and the differences between the super-rich and the rest of us would narrow, But their would still be the ability to make money from having money, to 'put your money to work for you", this should be taxed higher than wage rates in my opinion.

While I agree that, ultimately, the only thing that keeps society alive and vital, functional, is government, I also remember the day of responsible business that served with much less police work required.

Perhaps it's just wishful thinking of a voluntary return to those times, but policing is a very expensive way to get there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?

Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?

Yes.

It failed rather spectacularly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government. We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.

Actually retard, that would be a Republic - under a democracy, you could indeed "fire" the constitution and all rights therein.

{The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.}

James Madison, Federalist #10

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you want your opinion to matter replace Representatives with Proposals.
You still expose yourself to the losing side of a Proposal.

"If you like your Constitution, you can keep your Constitution, Period." - The magnificent exalted lord of all, Dear Leader Barack Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
California uses Proposals all the time.
And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.

So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?

Do you mean "propositions," sparky?

 

[BillyZane]

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.

There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.

I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.

If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.

No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.

I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.

As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.



What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?

What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?

Nothing, that's what.