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

[ilia25]

I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

It is not up to the OP to dispute anything. The burden of proof is on you.
This is right out of the Lib playbook. Throw statements out whether true/accurate or not and then demand others prove them wrong.
Nce try. That doesn't wash.
You make the claim, you prove it.

Which claim??? I've made several, for example I said that Fed was printing money like there is no tomorrow in the past years. You really think that is not true?

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.

Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.

Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.

Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.

Not that I expect you to understand any of this.



The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.

In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
It is what it is.
Government interference prolongs the negative.
Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
Shock to the system is just what is required.
Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
The President is saving his own ass.
How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.

I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.

 

[tooAlive]

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

I have a better question for you.

Name me one centrally planned economy that hasn't ended in utter failure.

USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. All failures. Two of which are still standing, yet on the verge of collapsing.

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

And why should they? Why should anyone invest to produce something that isn't in demand?

Only a stupid, incompetent government would spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make a factory that produces blue widgets, when everyone really wants red widgets.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

I have a better question for you.

Name me one centrally planned economy that hasn't ended in utter failure.

USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. All failures. Two of which are still standing, yet on the verge of collapsing.

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

And why should they?

Only a stupid, incompetent government would spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make a factory that produces blue widgets, when everyone really wants red widgets.

Think of France. That nation has these ridiculous labor laws which essentially prevent all except the most miserable worker to be separated from their employer.
The French government will pay subsidies to firms so that unneeded workers are retained.
It's no wonder people with a means to do so are expatriating. The taxes are absurd.

 

[tooAlive]

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

I believe I have.

No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.

I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

Then you retort by saying that you had originally mean 1% of the top 1% of earners, yet have no data to back that up.

The only way you can make socialism look good is by lying. Which you've already done a few times in this thread, and other similar ones.

 

[tooAlive]

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

I have a better question for you.

Name me one centrally planned economy that hasn't ended in utter failure.

USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. All failures. Two of which are still standing, yet on the verge of collapsing.

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

And why should they?

Only a stupid, incompetent government would spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make a factory that produces blue widgets, when everyone really wants red widgets.

Think of France. That nation has these ridiculous labor laws which essentially prevent all except the most miserable worker to be separated from their employer.
The French government will pay subsidies to firms so that unneeded workers are retained.
It's no wonder people with a means to do so are expatriating. The taxes are absurd.

I remember reading not too long ago that one of the highest courts in france ruled on a new tax hike being unconstitutional.

And a lot of French celebrities have even said they're turning in their citizenship because of the already-high taxes.

 

[ilia25]

I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

You are such a stupid liar! Show me where I said that.

 

[ilia25]

Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'.

It doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?

I believe I have.

No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.

I dare you to show that I have not posted links that disprove your comments and theories.

See? It is so easy to play a thoroughly dishonest and manipulative game to derail the discussion. But for one, I completely destroyed your argument that FDR's policies were necessary in the Great Depression and showed that his policies actually prolonged the Depression by many years. I did it in my own words and I have provided you links from credible sources to back up my opinion. You have not provided one single source to rebut that other than your own stated opinion.

And we're still nowhere close on what is a fair wage which I will continue to maintain is always set by a free market, and not by government.

 

[tooAlive]

I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

You are such a stupid liar! Show me where I said that.

Ahh, forgive me. You said 66% - not 70%. My bad.

No one paid 91% -- but people making over 1 million in today's dollars did pay 66% of their income in taxes.

YES THEY DID!

A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.

"So, when the top rate was 90 percent, it applied to only 1 percent of AGI." -- that means somebody's income was taxed at 90% marginal rate.

In any case, you're still wrong.

The effective rate back then for 1%ers wasn't 60%, 50% or even 40%. It was 30%.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I believe I have.

No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.

I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

Then you retort by saying that you had originally mean 1% of the top 1% of earners, yet have no data to back that up.

The only way you can make socialism look good is by lying. Which you've already done a few times in this thread, and other similar ones.

This guy is a typical greedy lib. He wants your money and will petition the government to use the threat of sanctions( tax law) to get it.
These pricks are the ones who are responsible for the 50k plus page tax code.
They want it to be complicated.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'.

It doesn't.

Denial is not a defense.
Look, you are out if gas.
You are a big government central planner.
You believe that all wealth should be the property of government.
You believe that life should be 'fair'..
You believe in equality of outcome.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.

I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

Then you retort by saying that you had originally mean 1% of the top 1% of earners, yet have no data to back that up.

The only way you can make socialism look good is by lying. Which you've already done a few times in this thread, and other similar ones.

This guy is a typical greedy lib. He wants your money and will petition the government to use the threat of sanctions( tax law) to get it.
These pricks are the ones who are responsible for the 50k plus page tax code.
They want it to be complicated.

You can't expect him to want to have to work for a living can you? Nah, he's entitled to use the governments guns to take from the rich so he doesn't have to work.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have Citizen A who stayed away from illegal substances and activities, who educated himself, who chose to get married before having children, who worked at whatever he could get for whatever wages he could get to develop a work ethic, learn marketable skills, to eventually master a trade, and who at age 40 was earning $500,000 a year.

You have Citizen B, the next door neighbor, who partied and squandered most of his youth, dropped out of school, had run ins with the law, got his girlfriend pregnant and was hit with child support, who refused to demean himself with menial work or would work just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance, but who had an uncle willing to give him some work so that at age 40 he was earning $50,000 a year.

So at a 10% flat rate, Citizen A pays $50,000 in taxes.
At a 10% flat rate, Citizen B pays $5,000 in taxes.

How do you rationalize that each is not paying his fair share?

 

[PMZ]

In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
It is what it is.
Government interference prolongs the negative.
Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
Shock to the system is just what is required.
Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
The President is saving his own ass.
How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.

I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.

First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.

This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.

Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.

I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.

First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.

This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.

Right...That is along the same premise that without labor there is no commerce.
Another Keynesian false hood.
Hey genius. It doesn't matter how badly people want something. If there is no one to make the product, it never gets to market.
What the hell do you think advertising is? It is an enticement.

 

[PMZ]

Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.

I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.

First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.

This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.

Right...That is along the same premise that without labor there is no commerce.
Another Keynesian false hood.
Hey genius. It doesn't matter how badly people want something. If there is no one to make the product, it never gets to market.
What the hell do you think advertising is? It is an enticement.

Labor is the skilled human input to creating wealth. Without labor there is no wealth created and therefore no commerce.

What the heck are you thinking? That the stork brings goods and services?

 

[thereisnospoon]

First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.

This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.

Right...That is along the same premise that without labor there is no commerce.
Another Keynesian false hood.
Hey genius. It doesn't matter how badly people want something. If there is no one to make the product, it never gets to market.
What the hell do you think advertising is? It is an enticement.

Labor is the skilled human input to creating wealth. Without labor there is no wealth created and therefore no commerce.

What the heck are you thinking? That the stork brings goods and services?

This is true but not accurate. The fact that due to technology and modern equipment, products can be produced faster, more efficiently and with far less in labor cost.

Labor is a commodity.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't

Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?

A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.

People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good

 

[tooAlive]

Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't

Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?

A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.

People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good

How is it regressive? It's flat. Everyone pays the same rate.

Regressive would mean that tax rates would go down as income went up. Pretty much the opposite of what we have now.

A flat tax is flat. It's neither progressive or regressive.