Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made: the fact that 'fair' is subjective. And indeed, it can be.
But that was the whole point of the OP. Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.
For me a 'fair share' is":
1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.
2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.
3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
So that's it in a nutshell. I challenge all to critique the concept. (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)
''1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''
Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' . Of course, at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.
As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive. We also choose to reward others, who work no harder, with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme. We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes. We have traditionally chosen the tax route.
''2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''
''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?
3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy. We, the people, elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size. And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.
If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?
1. Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them. And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all. That is not the same proportionally.
Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else. In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
2. An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted. If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
3. The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist. All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that. The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
''1. Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''
Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' . Of course, at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.
As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive. We also choose to reward others, who work no harder, with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme. We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes. We have traditionally chosen the tax route.
''2. Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''
''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?
3. Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government. Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy. We, the people, elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size. And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.
If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?
1. Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them. And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all. That is not the same proportionally.
Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else. In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
2. An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted. If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
3. The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist. All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that. The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive, compared to today, redistribution of wealth upwards. Richer rich, poorer poor, and I would think, on the average, poorer middle class. We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country, and this would make it more so.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Here's a reference that also includes other references (the TED one is particularly good) on why greater wealth inequality benefits nobody.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11
1. Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them. And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all. That is not the same proportionally.
Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else. In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
2. An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted. If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
3. The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist. All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that. The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive, compared to today, redistribution of wealth upwards. Richer rich, poorer poor, and I would think, on the average, poorer middle class. We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country, and this would make it more so.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted. I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
How about discussing one or more of the points I made? Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
Prove me wrong about that PMZ. If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that. If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
1. Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them. And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all. That is not the same proportionally.
Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else. In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
2. An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted. If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
3. The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist. All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that. The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive, compared to today, redistribution of wealth upwards. Richer rich, poorer poor, and I would think, on the average, poorer middle class. We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country, and this would make it more so.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted. I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
How about discussing one or more of the points I made? Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
Prove me wrong about that PMZ. If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that. If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive, compared to today, redistribution of wealth upwards. Richer rich, poorer poor, and I would think, on the average, poorer middle class. We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country, and this would make it more so.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted. I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
How about discussing one or more of the points I made? Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
Prove me wrong about that PMZ. If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that. If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted. I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
How about discussing one or more of the points I made? Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
Prove me wrong about that PMZ. If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that. If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes. So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to. I will not be party to derailing this thread. Thanks for understanding.
Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
1. A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
2. If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
3. If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never'). I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.
A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether. What could be more simple?
The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right. But if you are good little proles the state will give you some. And that such a system is the acme of fairness I do not entirely agree with this.
''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''
Actually, this not the liberal position at all. It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is. Big difference.
The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services. Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained, and everything else.
Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to, make more money regardless of the cost to others, in a market without competition. It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.
So, the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services), are owned by all of us, and the labor is employed by our elected representatives. At least it is in a democracy. So, if they don't do an adequate job, we fire them.
Tangible wealth production costs money. Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand, product by product mostly. Products in non-competitive markets are bundled, and paid for through taxes.
The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well, suited to the 'market', which, in the case of government, is the country governed.
If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems, that's an interesting topic.
If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes, it's not useful at all.
I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never'). I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.
A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether. What could be more simple?
The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right. But if you are good little proles the state will give you some. And that such a system is the acme of fairness I do not entirely agree with this.
''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''
Actually, this not the liberal position at all. It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is. Big difference.
The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services. Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained, and everything else.
Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to, make more money regardless of the cost to others, in a market without competition. It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.
So, the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services), are owned by all of us, and the labor is employed by our elected representatives. At least it is in a democracy. So, if they don't do an adequate job, we fire them.
Tangible wealth production costs money. Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand, product by product mostly. Products in non-competitive markets are bundled, and paid for through taxes.
The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well, suited to the 'market', which, in the case of government, is the country governed.
If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems, that's an interesting topic.
If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes, it's not useful at all.
Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.
I agree with most of what you say. The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails. In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state. From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.
Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated. As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'. I do not see this as surprising.
In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.
Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work. If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment. Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.
Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted. I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
How about discussing one or more of the points I made? Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
Prove me wrong about that PMZ. If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that. If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes. So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to. I will not be party to derailing this thread. Thanks for understanding.
Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
1. A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
2. If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
3. If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''
Actually, this not the liberal position at all. It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is. Big difference.
The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services. Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained, and everything else.
Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to, make more money regardless of the cost to others, in a market without competition. It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.
So, the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services), are owned by all of us, and the labor is employed by our elected representatives. At least it is in a democracy. So, if they don't do an adequate job, we fire them.
Tangible wealth production costs money. Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand, product by product mostly. Products in non-competitive markets are bundled, and paid for through taxes.
The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well, suited to the 'market', which, in the case of government, is the country governed.
If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems, that's an interesting topic.
If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes, it's not useful at all.
Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.
I agree with most of what you say. The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails. In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state. From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.
Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated. As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'. I do not see this as surprising.
In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.
Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work. If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment. Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.
What is confusing to many is cause and effect. The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income. My references prior contain links to all kinds of statistics about how extreme we are. There have been many studies done that show that the average American has no idea how extreme wealth distribution is here and would pull strongly for more wealth equity if they knew. Real studies with real data rather than supposition.
If we want the poor to shoulder more of the load we have to pay them more. That simple. If that happened the wealthy would save on taxes but spend more on goods and services. That simple.
One other point. There is hardly any connection at all between socialism, government provided goods and services, and welfare.
Welfare is the product of poverty, not socialism. I've been in and lived in countries that have no welfare. Those stricken by poverty don't accommodate the wealthy by dying on the streets. They survive however they can. Mostly by prostitution, theft, begging, etc. Most of us would gladly choose even jail over starvation. All in all, having experienced it all, I would not choose to live in a country without welfare.
Many conservatives seem to confuse welfare abuse, which is a crime, with welfare which is the product of unemployment and low wages. Most of us would agree that crime can't be tolerated and we spend a great deal of money catching and prosecuting and punishing criminals. They are different than poor people.
Many of the alternative tax schemes posted here are thinly disguised means to move one groups share of the cost of maintaining our country to other groups. Understandable but not a solution to any real problem.
Our real problem is extreme wealth inequality as my references clearly show. Anything that makes it more extreme is a big problem, not a solution.
The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.
Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.
I agree with most of what you say. The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails. In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state. From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.
Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated. As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'. I do not see this as surprising.
In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.
Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work. If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment. Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.
What is confusing to many is cause and effect. The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income. My references prior contain links to all kinds of statistics about how extreme we are. There have been many studies done that show that the average American has no idea how extreme wealth distribution is here and would pull strongly for more wealth equity if they knew. Real studies with real data rather than supposition.
If we want the poor to shoulder more of the load we have to pay them more. That simple. If that happened the wealthy would save on taxes but spend more on goods and services. That simple.
One other point. There is hardly any connection at all between socialism, government provided goods and services, and welfare.
Welfare is the product of poverty, not socialism. I've been in and lived in countries that have no welfare. Those stricken by poverty don't accommodate the wealthy by dying on the streets. They survive however they can. Mostly by prostitution, theft, begging, etc. Most of us would gladly choose even jail over starvation. All in all, having experienced it all, I would not choose to live in a country without welfare.
Many conservatives seem to confuse welfare abuse, which is a crime, with welfare which is the product of unemployment and low wages. Most of us would agree that crime can't be tolerated and we spend a great deal of money catching and prosecuting and punishing criminals. They are different than poor people.
Many of the alternative tax schemes posted here are thinly disguised means to move one groups share of the cost of maintaining our country to other groups. Understandable but not a solution to any real problem.
Our real problem is extreme wealth inequality as my references clearly show. Anything that makes it more extreme is a big problem, not a solution.
Like you I would not choose to live in a country without welfare. But neither would I choose a society where t is possible to live in a household where no one works, has ever worked or has any intention of working in the future.
Reducing inequalities in wealth sounds nice but it simply part of the chimera of 'equality', chased by socialists over the last few generations, with often disastrous, indeed murderous, results.
Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes. So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to. I will not be party to derailing this thread. Thanks for understanding.
Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
1. A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
2. If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
3. If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country. He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible. And if you don't like it you can leave. But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
It makes you rich, thus evil. People like PMS don't like to work hard, or study, or take risks, so it's not fair to them that other people do and end up building things like companies that grow and hire people for a decent wage and build products. PMS wants us to live in caves and distribute labor and food evenly where we keep an eye on everyone and make sure no one gets ahead of anyone else in the cave.I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes. So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to. I will not be party to derailing this thread. Thanks for understanding.
Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
1. A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
2. If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
3. If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country. He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible. And if you don't like it you can leave. But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
Exactly.
According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.
^^^ I vote this post by PMZ as the dumbest post ever made in the history of mankind.
I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes. So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to. I will not be party to derailing this thread. Thanks for understanding.
Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
1. A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
2. If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
3. If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country. He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible. And if you don't like it you can leave. But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
Exactly.
According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
