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

[PMZ]

I do not have an agenda. That is the exclusive province of liberals.

I have an agenda - I freely admit it.

Here is my agenda;

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Interesting. The same as mine.

 

[ilia25]

Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them

A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government. Gotcha.

The whole 'fair share' concept is flawed when 'taxing the rich more' is looked at as the way to fix the current economic problems of the country.

Taxing the rich is not for fixing the economy. It makes the rest to be better off.

Those with the ability to read and comprehend will almost certainly see parallels in this and current policy, both that already implemented and that which is proposed.

And what about this depression, does Cato Institute had an explanation? Is it because Obama raised tom marginal rates to 63%? Or did he authorized cartels to maintain prices?

Cato is a fraud. They list all FDR policies as the cause of Great Depression with no data to substantiate their claims. And the fact that we have another depression without those policies is one more proof that Cato is a fraud.

 

[PMZ]

Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them

A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government. Gotcha.

You are one ignorant man.

Show me the part where bankers agreed to give up due diligence?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Ok that's one question answered. Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.

Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that 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?

Pretty basic questions can you answer them?

 

[ilia25]

It's sounds like we agree. Just lower income tax to a flat 10% and put the gov't on a SERIOUS diet! Then we will have it licked, right??

You mean put the government on a serious diet like Europe did so that we could share their success in recovery from the Great Recession? Fortunately most of us aren't that stupid.

Europe's "serious diet" was the equivalent of putting less butter on their potato chips. That socialist countries didn't rebound is an argument for nothing.

"Socialist" countries are fine -- Northern Europe are more socialist than the South. Here, taxes as percent of GDP:
Sweden 45.8
Germany 40.6
----
Greece 30.0
Ireland 30.8

Yet Sweden and Germany are doing very well, and Greece and Ireland are in deep depression because of huge cuts in public spending.

 

[PMZ]

PMZ, the master of the non sequitur.

There are, as I've frequently pointed out, many examples of media conservatism Newspeak, where common English words have been appropriated to the task of mis-communicating rather than communicating.

One is "non-sequitor" which they claim as meaning at odds with conservative media dogma.

Of course, in all cults, there is nothing more forbidden than being at odds with dogma.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Why are you lying about the views of others? Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out? Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.

I also believe that we should all be free. I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though. You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you? Is that your belief? Do you really believe that the only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free? Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.

 

[kaz]

The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe

What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do

 

[kaz]

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.

I already addressed this. If anyone on my staff leaves, I can get a raft of resumes to replace them. The hardest to replace are my managers and senior staff by the way, the ones closes to being me. The rest are just an inconvenience to hire and train a replacement. If I leave, the jobs go away. People who do what I do, particularly with our belligerent government trying to trip us every step of the way, are few and far between.

So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government. Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people. If we go broke lose my pile.

But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.

And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter. Got it.

Isn't slavery grand? No wonder business is holding back America's economic recovery. The poorer the economy, the cheaper slaves are. And with modern slavery, you don't have to even pay the people creating your wealth enough for food.

What do slaves have to do with the discussion?

 

[ilia25]

So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government. Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people. If we go broke lose my pile.

But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.

And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter. Got it.

The credit goes to all of you. You would not be able to earn your income w/o your employees, and vice versa. You are not doing what you do out of charity, and it does not entitle you to higher income or any other exceptional reward.

There is no moral argument for taxing the rich less. There is one for taxing them more.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Ok that's one question answered. Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.

Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that 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?

Pretty basic questions can you answer them?

They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.

I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.

I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.

Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.

I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.

I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Why are you lying about the views of others? Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out? Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.

I also believe that we should all be free. I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though. You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you? Is that your belief? Do you really believe that he only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free? Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.

So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?

 

[PMZ]

The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe

What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do

Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.

 

[kaz]

The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe

What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do

Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.

Do you know what the word "Federalist" means? Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end. I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.

But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars. And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.

We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves. And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Ok that's one question answered. Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.

Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that 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?

Pretty basic questions can you answer them?

They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.

I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.

I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.

Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.

I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.

I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.

Pretty basic, yes. Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions. Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.

So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have. However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.

To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.

 

[PMZ]

What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do

Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.

Do you know what the word "Federalist" means? Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."

Is this another Newspeak thing that you'd like to appropriate to conservative dogma?

 

[PMZ]

What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do

Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.

Do you know what the word "Federalist" means? Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."

I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end. I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.

But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars. And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.

We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves. And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us. And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.

So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Why are you lying about the views of others? Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out? Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.

I also believe that we should all be free. I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though. You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you? Is that your belief? Do you really believe that he only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free? Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.

So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?

Yes, I do not think the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor. Money does not make one free, in some respects money, and more particularly assets, make one less free due to the responsibilities and burden of ownership. Freedom to me is, in part, the ability to do what I want when I want to do it, so long as I do not harm others, and without being burdened by an oppressive government, rules and regulations.

Yes, I started out broke earning minimum wage bagging groceries and cutting lawns. Now, I have hundreds of inventions, have run my own company, and worked for a few companies as an Engineer. I still work but I do so for much less money than I did during the dot com boom years. For me the act of deciding to earn less money, meant freeing myself up to do more things, such as spending more time at home with my family.

 

[kaz]

Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.

Do you know what the word "Federalist" means? Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."

Is this another Newspeak thing that you'd like to appropriate to conservative dogma?

Actually it's pretty funny that you chose the word "Federalist" to mean "centralized power" when it's actually not that at all. In fact I am a Federalist. Power divided is power checked. You're a socialist. We're all equal, some people are just more equal than others...