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

[Foxfyre]

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society. The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it. Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.

 

[PMZ]

Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about doing these things and be elected.

Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.

I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people. If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist, it's time to listen and figure out why.

That’s the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.

I was talking about an austerity program combined with income increases as a means to balance our yearly budget and pay something on our debt.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about?

Austerity makes the country a less desirable place to live. In many ways, like education, it limits our future success, ultimately costing us revenue.

So like in business, nobody shrinks to success. They grow to success.

Business grows by offering ever better products to increasingly satisfied customers. It does that in the most effective way by eliminating product waste by investing in process quality improvement which is basically variability reduction.

Why would anyone expect that the means of national success would be fundamentally different than business success?

 

[PMZ]

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society. The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it. Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.

You, I assume, didn't know personally any of the founders. So, what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified. Our Constitution.

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained. The Federal Court System.

That’s what we follow. Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society. The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it. Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.

You, I assume, didn't know personally any of the founders. So, what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified. Our Constitution.

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained. The Federal Court System.

That’s what we follow. Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?

Sorry, but the Founders left us an enormous amount of literature such as their transcribed speeches, their written arguments, their letters, notes, and other documents all safely preserved in the National Archives with sufficient copies preserved by historical groups to ensure they will never be lost to us. These are the foundation and the underpinning of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they should be required reading for every American in any competent educational system.

If they were required reading, you wouldn't make foolish statements such as we have no idea what they thought or why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are structured as they are.

Had you read them you would know that the supremacy of the Constitution was not to be maintained by the court system that was to have no more power than Congress or the Executive Branch of government and was given no power whatsoever to make law.

And the Founders would have been horrified to think that an American, given every opportunity to education himself or herself, would think that the courts should be given power to dictate what a fair share of taxes would be.

 

[PMZ]

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society. The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it. Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.

You, I assume, didn't know personally any of the founders. So, what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified. Our Constitution.

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained. The Federal Court System.

That’s what we follow. Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?

Sorry, but the Founders left us an enormous amount of literature such as their transcribed speeches, their written arguments, their letters, notes, and other documents all safely preserved in the National Archives with sufficient copies preserved by historical groups to ensure they will never be lost to us. These are the foundation and the underpinning of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they should be required reading for every American in any competent educational system.

If they were required reading, you wouldn't make foolish statements such as we have no idea what they thought or why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are structured as they are.

Had you read them you would know that the supremacy of the Constitution was not to be maintained by the court system that was to have no more power than Congress or the Executive Branch of government and was given no power whatsoever to make law.

And the Founders would have been horrified to think that an American, given every opportunity to education himself or herself, would think that the courts should be given power to dictate what a fair share of taxes would be.

None of that history has any application or relevance to our country. It's simply the collection of what was debated vs what was decided. You may find among those records what you agree with. It's just as possible to find the opposite. It might be fun to stage a recreation of the debate between the founders based on their individual positions but it would in no way change our Constitution. It is what they negotiated and agreed to.

 

[Foxfyre]

You, I assume, didn't know personally any of the founders. So, what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified. Our Constitution.

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained. The Federal Court System.

That’s what we follow. Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?

Sorry, but the Founders left us an enormous amount of literature such as their transcribed speeches, their written arguments, their letters, notes, and other documents all safely preserved in the National Archives with sufficient copies preserved by historical groups to ensure they will never be lost to us. These are the foundation and the underpinning of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they should be required reading for every American in any competent educational system.

If they were required reading, you wouldn't make foolish statements such as we have no idea what they thought or why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are structured as they are.

Had you read them you would know that the supremacy of the Constitution was not to be maintained by the court system that was to have no more power than Congress or the Executive Branch of government and was given no power whatsoever to make law.

And the Founders would have been horrified to think that an American, given every opportunity to education himself or herself, would think that the courts should be given power to dictate what a fair share of taxes would be.

None of that history has any application or relevance to our country. It's simply the collection of what was debated vs what was decided. You may find among those records what you agree with. It's just as possible to find the opposite. It might be fun to stage a recreation of the debate between the founders based on their individual positions but it would in no way change our Constitution. It is what they negotiated and agreed to.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the sad evidence of why my thread on The Rise and Decline of the American Empire is so relevant, and the reason for why even a discussion on basic taxes to fund the government is so difficult to have on a message board populated by presumably mostly average American citizens.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society. The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it. Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.

You, I assume, didn't know personally any of the founders. So, what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified. Our Constitution.

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained. The Federal Court System.

That’s what we follow. Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?

What a retard.

 

[PMZ]

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society. The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it. Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.

You, I assume, didn't know personally any of the founders. So, what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified. Our Constitution.

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained. The Federal Court System.

That’s what we follow. Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?

What a retard.

This is the refutation of what I said. What does this amount to? Not a thing. There is nothing that they have to say.

What a retard. What does that mean?

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"

.

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

 

[PMZ]

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"

.

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

I agree. All unconstitional taxes should be stopped.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"

.

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose. I define fairness re the tax code to be that everybody has some skin in the game and pays the same tax that everybody else pays. So if it is a sales tax, everybody pays it at the exact same rate that everybody else pays it with no exceptions for any special interests no mattter how worthy. If it is an income tax, everybody pays the same flat percentage on all earned income with no exceptions for any special interests no matter how worthy. Tax policy will not favor one group over another. The purpose of taxation is to pay the NECESSARY bills of the government and is for no other purpose.

I am guessing no leftist/progressive/modern day liberal would agree to that however because it takes power away from the government and gives it back to the people and it takes class warfare completely out of the equation.

 

[PMZ]

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"

.

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose. I define fairness re the tax code to be that everybody has some skin in the game and pays the same tax that everybody else pays. So if it is a sales tax, everybody pays it at the exact same rate that everybody else pays it with no exceptions for any special interests no mattter how worthy. If it is an income tax, everybody pays the same flat percentage on all earned income with no exceptions for any special interests no matter how worthy. Tax policy will not favor one group over another. The purpose of taxation is to pay the NECESSARY bills of the government and is for no other purpose.

I am guessing no leftist/progressive/modern day liberal would agree to that however because it takes power away from the government and gives it back to the people and it takes class warfare completely out of the equation.

Conservatives define fairer as less of their skin in the game.

 

[PMZ]

All tyrannical government shoots for richer rich and poorer poor. That’s how they get power.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"

.

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose. .

There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax

.

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose. .

There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax

.

And your point is? Did you read the article you linked?

"Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues. if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.

But the money clause in your linked article is this:

Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:

Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.

Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.

My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government. "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.

 

[PMZ]

It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose. .

There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax

.

And your point is? Did you read the article you linked?

"Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues. if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.

But the money clause in your linked article is this:

Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:

Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.

Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.

My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government. "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.

In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.

That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.

Not so much any more.

 

[PMZ]

The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.

It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose. .

There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax

.

Good article. The fair tax is less fair, very problematic, and does not solve any real problems.

 

[boedicca]

There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax

.

And your point is? Did you read the article you linked?

"Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues. if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.

But the money clause in your linked article is this:

Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:

Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.

Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.

My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government. "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.

In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.

That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.

Not so much any more.

Translation: Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.

 

[bripat9643]

And your point is? Did you read the article you linked?

"Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues. if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.

But the money clause in your linked article is this:



My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government. "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.

In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.

That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.

Not so much any more.

Translation: Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.

Bingo!

 

[Contumacious]

My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government. "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.

That is the definition of a CONSTITUTIONAL TAX for which ALL AMERICANS are responsible. That is the ONLY definition I accept and which was applied by SCOTUS prior to 1935.

.

.