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

[PMZ]

Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work. If they work they loose their welfare. This is nutz.

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare? Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year? Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?

40Million Americans on welfare. The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare. These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?

The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.

It's really not that complex.

What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare? Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients. It's really not that complex.

Read Rules for Radicals. They are not even hiding what they are doing. The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society. Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.

I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.

Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[thereisnospoon]

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.

Well, there's your problem. When they say "fair share", you think they mean "fair share of the burden", when what they ACTUALLY mean is "fair share of what they have and earn". The answer to that, of course, is "however much it takes for them to be as poor as I am."

She states the truth!!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?

By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).

We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.

In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).

The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.

Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.

People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
The wages paid by most businesses are appropriate. They must be. If not, any business that pays lower than market rate would find itself with high employee turnover.
Who is "we"? And what is that "something" we must do sooner or later?
And please, do not mention of government perks to give people magic raises or tax increases to fund same. You've already pointed out that you think government should be the great provider. Try another tactic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else.

I have made the point that labor is a commodity on many occasions.
The libs vent "people are not a commodity"....Never said they were. But you know liberals. Never let a cause or a reason to complain go to waste.

 

[Uncensored2008]

John Maynard Keynes.

Bullshit.

You've never read Keynes and you have no grasp of what he promoted.

 

[PMZ]

Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?

By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).

We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.

In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).

The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.

Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.

People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
The wages paid by most businesses are appropriate. They must be. If not, any business that pays lower than market rate would find itself with high employee turnover.
Who is "we"? And what is that "something" we must do sooner or later?
And please, do not mention of government perks to give people magic raises or tax increases to fund same. You've already pointed out that you think government should be the great provider. Try another tactic.

Of course your thinking only applies to times of full employment. There's a reason why businesses are in no hurry to return there.

 

[PMZ]

John Maynard Keynes.

Bullshit.

You've never read Keynes and you have no grasp of what he promoted.

I love you people who feel entitled to whatever truth benefits you. So do the media icons. You are the easiest to mislead. Car dealers must look forward to your visits.

 

[PMZ]

The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else.

I have made the point that labor is a commodity on many occasions.
The libs vent "people are not a commodity"....Never said they were. But you know liberals. Never let a cause or a reason to complain go to waste.

If, in your business, labor is a commodity, you have no competition.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have made the point that labor is a commodity on many occasions.
The libs vent "people are not a commodity"....Never said they were. But you know liberals. Never let a cause or a reason to complain go to waste.

Leftists lack the intellect to learn even simple concepts - which is why they are leftists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I love you people who feel entitled to whatever truth benefits you. So do the media icons. You are the easiest to mislead. Car dealers must look forward to your visits.

There are certain tells. T_Polecat runs around claiming that the Bible orders Christians to kill. This is clear evidence that he has never read the Bible and relies on hate sites to fuel his bigotry.

Likewise, statements you make in your posts demonstrate well that you've never perused "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." You accrue to Keynes that which is diametrically opposed to what he actually wrote.

Keynes was not Marx, and that you view him as such is a clear indicator that you get your information from MSNBC, ThinkProgress, et al. and not from actual knowledge.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government. 1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail. 2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.

 

[PMZ]

I love you people who feel entitled to whatever truth benefits you. So do the media icons. You are the easiest to mislead. Car dealers must look forward to your visits.

There are certain tells. T_Polecat runs around claiming that the Bible orders Christians to kill. This is clear evidence that he has never read the Bible and relies on hate sites to fuel his bigotry.

Likewise, statements you make in your posts demonstrate well that you've never perused "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." You accrue to Keynes that which is diametrically opposed to what he actually wrote.

Keynes was not Marx, and that you view him as such is a clear indicator that you get your information from MSNBC, ThinkProgress, et al. and not from actual knowledge.

Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.

See the credibility problem there?

 

[PMZ]

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government. 1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail. 2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.

Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government. 1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail. 2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.

Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of government. Obamacare is a perfect example of a new trust forming, where government ensure exclusive access to the market for well connected looters such as Blue Cross, AIG, and Kaiser. Competitors are coerced by agents of the government to either be part of the trust with price fixing or face violence from the government. No competition for the market is allowed, competitors are imprisoned or fined by the rulers of the state on behalf of the crony corporations that have merged into the state.

This is always the case with a monopoly or trust, since the maintenance of a monopoly ultimately rests on the use of violence. Violence is the exclusive domain of the state,

Standard Disclaimer: The holder of the piece of toast with the virgin Mary burned into the crust does have a monopoly of sorts, since the product is unique. This is known as a natural monopoly. But such monopolies are resource based rather than market based.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.

See the credibility problem there?

Which statement or idea came from Limbaugh?

Hmmm?

Ah, that is just one of the "mewling points" you have from DailyKOS - you threw it to see if it would stick.

Carry on.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government. 1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail. 2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.

Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.

You mean Amerika don't you?

 

[PMZ]

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government. 1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail. 2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.

Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.

You mean Amerika don't you?

No I mean the country that you love to hate.

 

[PMZ]

Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.

See the credibility problem there?

Which statement or idea came from Limbaugh?

Hmmm?

Ah, that is just one of the "mewling points" you have from DailyKOS - you threw it to see if it would stick.

Carry on.

I fully plan to carry on with or without your permission. That's what independent thinkers do. You would not understand that at all.

Keep your trunk around the elephant tail in front of you. That's your whole job. Focus. Don't ever let go. Ever!

 

[PMZ]

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government. 1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail. 2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.

Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of government. Obamacare is a perfect example of a new trust forming, where government ensure exclusive access to the market for well connected looters such as Blue Cross, AIG, and Kaiser. Competitors are coerced by agents of the government to either be part of the trust with price fixing or face violence from the government. No competition for the market is allowed, competitors are imprisoned or fined by the rulers of the state on behalf of the crony corporations that have merged into the state.

This is always the case with a monopoly or trust, since the maintenance of a monopoly ultimately rests on the use of violence. Violence is the exclusive domain of the state,

Standard Disclaimer: The holder of the piece of toast with the virgin Mary burned into the crust does have a monopoly of sorts, since the product is unique. This is known as a natural monopoly. But such monopolies are resource based rather than market based.

Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of business and government.

Remember that capitalism is functional only when competition tames make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is nothing less efficient than a non-competive capitalist market.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Where's the poll entry for, "We should pay to government in proportion to what we receive from government" ?