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

[RKMBrown]

Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially. We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.

There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax. It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.

Why?

Good question.

The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.

The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.

I prefer to believe it would encourage them to work an extra % a week to cover the taxes, give them a true feeling of ownership regarding the spending of the country and a real reason to agree government should be fiscally responsible with OUR money.

 

[tooAlive]

I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.

Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.

It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.

You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.

Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.

It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.

You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.

Supreme Court Justice Field used those very words when he declared the FIRST INCOME TAX Unconstitutional.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.

Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.

It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.

You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.

You realize of course that you are asking a group that thrives on class warfare, so much that they would not exist if it was not for class warfare, if they want to end class warfare?

 

[PMZ]

Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income. You have to factor that in there too. Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes. But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.

The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them. And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.

A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.

With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.

The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.

The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.

Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially. We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.

There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax. It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.

Why?

Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

 

[PMZ]

Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income. You have to factor that in there too. Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes. But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.

The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them. And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.

A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.

With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.

The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.

The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.

Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially. We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.

There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax. It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.

your assumptions are flawed. you assume that the rich who live off of investments are not paying anything, investment income should be taxed just like hourly earned income, at the same flat rate.

If a guy like Warren Buffet makes 100M on his investments he pays the same rate as the guy on minimum wage. 10%. In case you don't know it 10% of 100M is 10M.

''investment income should be taxed just like hourly earned incom''

This I totally agree with.

 

[RKMBrown]

Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially. We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.

There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax. It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.

Why?

Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

>> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

How? You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money. Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.

>> Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing. What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?

 

[PMZ]

One thing that I'll never understand or accept is all of the conservative whining about having to work. Apparently they were raised to believe that wealth is an entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for. And responsibilities are optional.

I was taught that work was an entitlement, table stakes for life, and responsibility for others a tribute to your good fortune.

When I was young those values led me to be a Republican. These new values that the GOP has migrated to though are pure bullshit.

 

[PMZ]

Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially. We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.

There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax. It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.

Why?

Good question.

The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.

The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.

Which other countries? Give us a list.

 

[Billo_Really]

You envy and hatred of people like the Kennedys is noted. other than that, your post is worthless.

I love the Kennedy's!


The right has no equivalent to this....

 

[PMZ]

You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich. Every time you try, you will hurt the poor ever so much more than you will hurt the rich.

What about the people getting rich, by tearing down the poor? The people who have to cook-the-books, to get their dole? Stack the deck at the expense of others? People that are rich enough to influence legislatures to favor them and fuck me?

The problem is, most of the rich in this country are not self-made millionaires. They are born into privilage. They live their whole life not having to work hard or do the things that their parents and grandparents did to get to that level. The things you had to do to get the things you needed to get done. Then daddy dies and they get thrusted into a CEO position and the company takes a dive because they just don't know what it takes (or what it took) to get there.

Experience is not something you can bestowe! There are no shortcuts. You have to do the work.

Do you know how many 2nd generation companies fail in the US? A lot! I've been doing what I've been doing (electrical engineering) for 40 years (since I was 17) and I can tell if someone knows their shit and someone who doesn't, just by how they talk in the office. And I'm sick of all these little rich kids, coming in with privilage, thinking their shit don't stink, thinking they're entitled to experience, that they should be treated as though they know something and I whind up spending overtime hours fixing all the crap they fuck up!

But when you go higher up the ladder, these preamadonna's can do some real damage to you and the country when they get involved in these phoney economy's like the derrivitives market. All this speculative crap doesn't create real goods or services. It is a phoney economy that will destroy the lives of people all over the planet. And who's fault is that? These little fuckin' kids who never had to work hard for a dollar.

You envy and hatred of people like the Kennedys is noted. other than that, your post is worthless.

The Kennedy's, despite living off a stolen fortune, at least gave back a great deal of community service.

Not in the ranks of Buffet and Gates and Oprah and Angelina Jolie.


More like Soros and the people whose foundations are listed on PBS credits.

Much above the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdock and that ilk.

 

[PMZ]

I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.

Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.

It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.

You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.

Who taught you that life was fair? They lied.

 

[RKMBrown]

One thing that I'll never understand or accept is all of the conservative whining about having to work. Apparently they were raised to believe that wealth is an entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for. And responsibilities are optional.

I was taught that work was an entitlement, table stakes for life, and responsibility for others a tribute to your good fortune.

When I was young those values led me to be a Republican. These new values that the GOP has migrated to though are pure bullshit.

>> One thing that I'll never understand or accept is all of the conservative whining about having to work.

False strawman.

>> Apparently they were raised to believe that wealth is an entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for.

False strawman.

>> And responsibilities are optional.

False strawman.

>> I was taught that work was an entitlement, table stakes for life, and responsibility for others a tribute to your good fortune.

That's your problem. You should have been taught that you were responsible for your own work, borrow when necessary to take educated risks, and take care of your family first so you can have a strong family that can participate in hand-ups, and never hand good money over to swine.

>> When I was young those values led me to be a Republican.

Then you were misled.

>> These new values that the GOP has migrated to though are pure bullshit.

Some are, some are not.

 

[Contumacious]

What about the people getting rich, by tearing down the poor? r.

Like Slick Willy?

$7,000,000 per speech.

And I suspect that HBO will be commanding the same amount.

.

 

[PMZ]

Why?

Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

>> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

How? You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money. Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.

>> Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing. What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?

I have no idea what your first point is about.

My position is the same one that I've made several times.

Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable. Aristocracy is always temporary.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

>> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.

How? You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money. Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.

>> Remember the French Revolution, our revolution and the Civil War? All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement, and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing. What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?

I have no idea what your first point is about.

My position is the same one that I've made several times.

Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable. Aristocracy is always temporary.

Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No? If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources? Why not? If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question. Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?

 

[g5000]

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.

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

 

[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.

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.

 

[tooAlive]

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.

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.

Well said.

Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.

AKA, the FairTax.

 

[g5000]

When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.

I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.

Well said.

Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.

AKA, the FairTax.

You two are very naive.

You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?