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

[Contumacious]

Eliminate the federal minimum wage law.
Replace SS with a 401k system.
Eliminate progressive tax rates replacing them with flat taxes on sales and imports.
Cut discretionary spending of the federal government to Clinton levels / GDP.

If the private sector gets their greedy hands on SS, there will be no retirement money for anyone.

HUH?

How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston

By BECCA AARONSON

Published: September 17, 2011

GALVESTON — Gov. Rick Perry has repeatedly called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and said that people ought to control their own retirement money. But if the social safety net program created in 1935 were eliminated — something President Eisenhower once said would be a politically stupid move — what might take its place? "

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here you go twit. Texas Economy at a Glance

The table doesn't break down jobs that are a result of government funding or subsidies. Everyone of those industry's could have contracts with the government, but the table doesn't list that.

So no, you haven't proven your point.

And where does govco get it's funding? ROFL you make idiots look smart.

 

[RKMBrown]

A few facts and figures about the Texas economy myth...

Let's start at the point on which Texas economy mythologizers brag. Texas collects less tax revenue per capita than 43 other states. Texas spends less money per capita than 47 other states. Those are facts.

Now let's look at some other facts: in 2011, 18.5 percent of Texans lived in poverty. That's 4.6 million Texans. Texas has a higher unemployment rate than 35 other states. Texas has more women living in poverty than 46 other states.

Texans shouldn't be talking about the IQ of others, when they live in a state with the lowest graduation rate in the country.

Texas spends less money on education than 42 other states, despite having the most students enrolled in public schools. With that combination, it's no wonder at all that Texas has the lowest graduation rate in the country. A huge component of our poor economic status is our dismal school system. Imagine how much worse that problem will be when all 18-35 year olds grew up in this education system. And then all 18-50 year olds. That is a very, very ugly picture. We also spend less than 45 other states on health care, and we have the most uninsured per capita in the nation. See the trend?

That is a whole state of stupid.

Here's a few more Texas tidbits...

Another thing that's pretty fucked about Texas, is the poorest Texans pay 4 times the the tax rate than the richest Texans do.




And most of the Texas economic growth, is minimum-wage jobs.




And since Texans like to suck the big corporate dick, they have the worst environment in the country.





Texas is just a fucked up state, with a fucked up idiot population, that couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the 'c' and the 'a'.


The only good thing that ever came out of Texas was Stevie Ray Vaughn and Earl Cambell.

Yawn.

 

[AnonymousMD]

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.

Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.

Why would people that you call vile despicable evil rich want to help you?

Why are the democrats refusing to break up the monopolies the 1% have on our economy? Oh yeah the richest of the 1% are the biggest democrat supporters. LOL

 

[PMZ]

As a strawman, let's try the concept of equal pain. A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility, I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.

Why would people that you call vile despicable evil rich want to help you?

Why are the democrats refusing to break up the monopolies the 1% have on our economy? Oh yeah the richest of the 1% are the biggest democrat supporters. LOL

It really doesn't matter who they support. The fact that wealth is distributed as extremely as it is here and now is dysfunctional at so many levels, not the least of which is economic.

Our economy was always grown based on the American dream, which has now been all but killed by the royalist pursuing plutocracy.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.

Apparently the parents of conservatives never taught them that life is not fair.

 

[RKMBrown]

As a strawman, let's try the concept of equal pain. A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility, I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.

I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain. Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er. Whine? ROFL your just a looser.

 

[PMZ]

As a strawman, let's try the concept of equal pain. A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility, I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.

I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain. Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er. Whine? ROFL your just a looser.

Then you won't mind going back to poverty. I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me. Maybe you're one of them.

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution. The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.

 

[RKMBrown]

As a strawman, let's try the concept of equal pain. A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility, I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.

I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain. Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er. Whine? ROFL your just a looser.

Then you won't mind going back to poverty. I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me. Maybe you're one of them.

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution. The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.

Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind. My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward. The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution. All punitive taxes do, is divide the country. Punishing people for success? lol

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the cruelest and most insidious concepts of modern American leftism aka progressivism aka liberalism is the concept that if the rich just had less, the poor would have more. Class envy is a viscious and hateful anchor to build a sociopolitical philosophy around, and will invariably be destructive.

 

[PMZ]

I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain. Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er. Whine? ROFL your just a looser.

Then you won't mind going back to poverty. I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me. Maybe you're one of them.

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution. The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.

Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind. My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward. The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution. All punitive taxes do, is divide the country. Punishing people for success? lol

Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism. It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone. That’s the part that Marx was insightful about.

What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution.

As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters, they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income. The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get.

Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there, the middle class.

 

[PMZ]

One of the cruelest and most insidious concepts of modern American leftism aka progressivism aka liberalism is the concept that if the rich just had less, the poor would have more. Class envy is a viscious and hateful anchor to build a sociopolitical philosophy around, and will invariably be destructive.

Class envy is a concept that the wealthy promote as it makes them feel accomplished. It has nothing to do with middle class motivation, the fuel of economic growth.

 

[Redfish]

Then you won't mind going back to poverty. I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me. Maybe you're one of them.

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution. The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.

Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind. My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward. The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution. All punitive taxes do, is divide the country. Punishing people for success? lol

Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism. It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone. That’s the part that Marx was inciteful about.
What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution.

As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters, they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income. The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get.

Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there, the middle class.

your extreme ignorance and your envy of successful people is noted, now move on.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

Considering that the richest people in America pay no taxes, I think if they would a least start to pay the legally required 15% that would be a good start.

Here's How 35,000 Of America's Wealthiest Households Got Off Tax-Free
Read more: 35,000 Wealthiest Pay No Income Tax - Business Insider


Next stupid poll question from the right......

 

[PMZ]

I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain. Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er. Whine? ROFL your just a looser.

Then you won't mind going back to poverty. I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me. Maybe you're one of them.

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution. The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.

Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind. My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward. The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution. All punitive taxes do, is divide the country. Punishing people for success? lol

I know many retired wealthy people who work at things that they're interested in for free. Anybody who thinks wealth is a motivator, compared to power, doesn't know people.

Capitaliam motivates by the promise of power and control. Progressive taxes let the wealthy feel superior, which is their motivation, but avoid the unstable society that unfettered capitalism surely leads to.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on. That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros.

 

[PMZ]

I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain. Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er. Whine? ROFL your just a looser.

Then you won't mind going back to poverty. I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me. Maybe you're one of them.

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution. The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.

Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind. My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward. The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution. All punitive taxes do, is divide the country. Punishing people for success? lol

Why do you call taxes punitive? You just said that poverty was painless.

 

[Contumacious]

The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on. That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros.

Hooooooooooooooly shit.

And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.

.