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

[JoeB131]

Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world

The highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is "fairly low." Only to you comrade. We're just lucky you let us keep anything at all...

You're lucky we don't have regular show trials for corporate douchebags... but that's just me, man.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, as are our income taxes on the very wealthy.

We tried the Supply Side Bullshit several times. It failed.

Actually, you're a fucking retard; Comrade JoeB Stalin;

Highest in the world - fucktard.

Joey thinks profit is evil. There is no hope for him

 

[thereisnospoon]

Clearly you are unable to learn it.

That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.

No matter what you'd like to be true, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody, compared to capitalism where they are owned by fewer people, down to one.

If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.

I do not have an agenda. That is the exclusive province of liberals.
I have not attempted to change anything.
YOU are the one who claimed the items in your list were examples of socialism.
Incorrect.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah I figured... amazing that society has devolved to allow these lower life forms to propagate and even thrive.

The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.

The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.

Who would possibly disagree with that. The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.

 

[PMZ]

That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.

No matter what you'd like to be true, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody, compared to capitalism where they are owned by fewer people, down to one.

If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.

"Socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody?"

"Capitalism is where they are owned by fewer people, down to one?"

What the freaking hell are you talking about? No one can be this dumb, no one.

Where I come from we have these special books called dictionaries. We use them as a reference that defines what specific words mean. It's handy because then we know what we mean when we talk to each other.

I hope that your planet has a similar thing someday.

 

[PMZ]

All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?

Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.

They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.

That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we? Did you see the stats above? They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.

I have a question for you. So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes. What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is. According to the IRS.

In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and paid 36.73% of the income tax.

 

[PMZ]

Huh? Are you off your meds again?

A typical conservative media cult denial. Proof that the cult appeals to mostly developmental 3ird graders.

Look, whether or not I've ever listened to conservative media has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people defend their chosen group.

That you think my comment has ANYTHING to do with conservative media is so completely out of left field so as to be worthy of a comment from the computer program eliza. You are not even being semi-coherent in your responses. Can you not understand basic English? Is English not your first language? If not then ok that might explain why your comments are sooooo whacky.

My comments are sooooooo whacky to you because they are true. If you took the time to find the truth rather than to listen/watch Republican advertising you'd know that.

 

[PMZ]

Funny stuff. You haven't had a real job have you? So let me tell you my experience.

- I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
- My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
- The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.

But I don't work! LOL!

You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.

I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.

If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host. So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...

Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.

 

[PMZ]

So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.

I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.

So then by your own admission, you benefit from less income tax at the expense of other humans paying for your share of the services you receive. And you are good with that. Further, you are so good with that you want the ratio to be extended until you see the pain in your bosses face as he has to get in a soup line with your parents in order to bring food home for his family. Still further you'd just love it if the owners of the company that gives you a paycheck were to be thrown into the street and their property distributed to you.

Which specific statement of mine are you disagreeing with?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think everyone should pay 25% across the board of their income. Is that a good idea?

 

[ScienceRocks]

All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?

Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.

They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.

That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we? Did you see the stats above? They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.

I have a question for you. So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes. What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is. According to the IRS.

In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and paid 36.73% of the income tax.

They have most of the intelligence when it comes to making the money. The goal "should" be aimed at educating the lower class, so they become capable of making more.

Right?

 

[PMZ]

Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.

He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote. These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever. The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives. Or that's the way it used to work.

Infrastructure is NOT socialism. It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services. It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves. Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow.

A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism. It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.

A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.

Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services. It assigns what it deems to be a fair share for each person to pay to support that.

Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed. Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.

Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government. A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.

The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able. A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.

So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?

You are clearly one of the thicker heads here.

Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Not political systems. With socialism the means of production, factories, machinery, computers, etc are owned by all of the people who are citizens of a country. With capitalism, those means are owned by some of the people, in the extreme, a single person.

Nobody owns labor, because that's slavery.

Our government system is a Constitutional, democratic, republic.

Constitutional = the contract whereby the citizens consent to be governed is written.

Democratic = decisions are made by polling the responsible parties. A plurality decides.

Republic = no monarch.

Did you even attend 5th grade?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.

I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.

If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host. So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...

Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.

And the materials those employees are using to "create the wealth" . . . are they just pulling those out of their asses when they visit the employee lavatory? Or did the employer you seem convinced does nothing purchase those materials with HIS money? The tools and machinery the employees use . . . where did THOSE come from? The building they work in, and the utilities they use, who provides those? The trucks they drive to deliver the goods, where did THEY come from? The record-keeping necessary to keep the business running and legal, who does that?

The employer creates jobs by providing all the things necessary to create a venue in which the employees can then exchange their labor for money.

 

[PMZ]

So you never worked for anyone, no one ever worked for you, and you never sold anything. That would make you a farmer and/or rancher who raised his own food and never bought or sold a thing.

I work with people. I sell the wealth that I create for money to buy what I want and need. Are you keeping up so far?

How do you create wealth? Is that hard? Why do you limit your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you think people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

Creating wealth is making something of value for customers who therefore are willing to exchange our tokens of worth, money, for it.

Henry Ford, for instance, had one notion that created huge value. Paying the builders of automobiles enough so that they could afford automobiles. I have no idea how many hours it took him to think of that idea.

Some people get wealthy through the lottery which creates zero wealth. Or the stock market. Or, like Bernie Madoff, just by stealing it.

I created wealth through product and process innovations.

Some people create wealth by welding, or assembling, or farming.

Our wealth is the sum total of what we create, goods and services. In the perfect world we all would keep the wealth that we create. But in the perfect world, many would earn nothing, because they have no wealth producing skills. Society's best option in those cases is to educate everyone to have wealth creation skills, because the wealth that we have to divy up among everyone is all of the wealth that we, all together, create.

Pretty basic stuff here.

 

[PMZ]

Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.

He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote. These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever. The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives. Or that's the way it used to work.

Infrastructure is NOT socialism. It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services. It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves. Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow.

A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism. It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.

A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.

Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services. It assigns a fair share for each person to pay to support that.

Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed. Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.

Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government. A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.

The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able. A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.

So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?

Moving from a free democratic republic with a capitalist economy (Americanism?) toward socialism with shades of totalitarianism thrown in.

You have already proven that you have no idea of the meaning of the words that you were told to use.

We have democracy. Government of, for, and by, we the people. Of, for, and by.

You advocate that we replace that with plutocracy. Government of, for, and by "special" people. Special by wealth, or cult, or position. In order to make those people more free.

I believe that we should all be free.

 

[PMZ]

But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM. And the determination to make the rich unrich. And that's pretty important.

Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?

 

[Darkwind]

All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?

Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.

They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.

That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we? Did you see the stats above? They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.

I have a question for you. So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes. What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is. According to the IRS.

In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and paid 36.73% of the income tax.

You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value? We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.

 

[PMZ]

But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM. And the determination to make the rich unrich. And that's pretty important.

I call that socialist... even the socialists are not stupid enough to want to throw all of their private property to the government's care. They just want the government to take someone else's property other than their own and give them special dispensation from the extreme pain that the rich deserve.

Private property is property owned by single owners. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything posted here. But it is a convenient red herring. And I certainly don't blame you for trying that at this point in time. You seem to have run out of meaningful arguments.

 

[Darkwind]

But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM. And the determination to make the rich unrich. And that's pretty important.

Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?

Strange notion. What redistribution would that be? Earning more is not redistribution. You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?

 

[PMZ]

Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.



That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we? Did you see the stats above? They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.

I have a question for you. So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes. What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is. According to the IRS.

In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and paid 36.73% of the income tax.

You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value? We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.

You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.