How Much is "Fair"?

[American]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that. Sounds like you have a terrible accountant.

What I will say, however, is that contrary to what right-wing dip shits want to believe Liberals would rather not tax actual wages that much because most of the super-rich don't actually bring in that much in actual wages. They earn their money via capital gains that they never cash in. That is the primary problem we need to resolve.

Also, if you'd like to help us cut military spending I'm willing to bet we could cut those taxes down quite a bit.

I want to see a specific percentage from you. Stop dancing and put it down. Military spending is not where most of the money is going, and you know it. You're playing the typical leftist games.

 

[American]

I see lots of disingenuous people voting for every choice to muddle up the poll.

 

[OrphanSlug]

How this thread is playing out is exactly why I voted 100%, more or less a protest to the intention and seriousness of the thread.

What no one is asking, in a sea of social and economic justice arguments, is the economic intention behind taxation and why the amount taxed is (or should) be some rate.

Taxation drives currency (both its use and its valuation) which supports the logical sequence of federal spending first then taxation is later. Inject into the economy by government spending as a matter of basic GDP math then tax as a means to deal with excess, the entire time paying attention to overall aggregate demand.

If the assumption is a mixed market economic model means government is the means to reduce the amplification of the natural economic cycle then taxation is not really about the wealthy "paying their fair share."

That is why I keep harping on our bloated tax code, the majority of those politically motivated gifts has absolutely nothing to do with the economic fluidity of aggregate demand against a general constant of excess. It is also why I have no issue with some form of progressive taxation by income quintile (or bracket) because excess tends to collect at the top.

The more wealth pools in the hands of the few the more we face bubble and pop economic consequences which means the rise ends up consequential to the feeling more have when the economy collapses, it has nothing to do with "confiscation" or "jealousy" of wealth. We have proven that point.

The more you put people into the lower income quintiles the same thing is true, the more we become reliant on government spending to beat out taxation by 3% or even 6% (% of government spending to GDP and % of government taxation to GDP) because you have a pool of people who do not participate very well (or very healthy) in the economy. Wealth pooling actually ends up relational to government dependency. We have proven that point too.

That is why tax rates on the wealthy should be slightly higher now and much higher during an economic boom, it is also why tax cuts should be temporary to the economic condition. Again spend first, tax later.

There should be almost no (not no, almost no) taxation on the lowest income quintile. They tend to spend everything they make and that usually is best into the economy and not the government's excess throttle means (taxation.)

Federal taxation and spending has everything to do with economic condition, aggregate demand and excess, and nothing to do with "pay their fair share" bullshit progressives continually pimp.

Why is that so hard for so many to understand?

(I had to make a few pre coffee early this morning for me edits, apologies.)

 

[bongsaway]

Hell yes, indeed!

Ok, I'm confused here. I can't tell if you're for taxing corporations or not.

For the record, corporations don't pay taxes. That cost is past down to the consumer by an increase in unit cost. Corporate taxes are simply hidden taxes. This is why you and I can never know exactly how much we are paying in taxes.

I am completely for corporations and billionaires paying some kind of tax. How does a company make five billion in profit and yet pay no income tax? It's a slap in the face to the average working person.

 

[bongsaway]

I see lots of disingenuous people voting for every choice to muddle up the poll.

Well maybe as the good conservative you are you can go in and correct the poll to your liking?

 

[screenwriter]

I am completely for corporations and billionaires paying some kind of tax. How does a company make five billion in profit and yet pay no income tax? It's a slap in the face to the average working person.

Questions: How much profit are you willing to "allow" any corporation to have annually?
How much wealth are you willing to "allow" any individual to possess?

Those are the more valid questions instead of how much should they be taxed - tax isn't the end game at all. The end game is stripping some people and companies of "too much" wealth without defining "much" or "enough" - which is very disingenuous. I'm asking for a definition of "much" "too much" and "enough" in the end-game context of using taxes to strip them down to those amounts.

 

[weaver2]

.........Federal taxation and spending has everything to do with economic condition, aggregate demand and excess, and nothing to do with "pay their fair share" bullshit progressives continually pimp.

Of course; taxes and spending in a reasonably honest government are based on economics. However, If considering fairness is tossed out of the equation we go back to the time of "Let them eat cake". That fairness is being talked about a lot right now is, maybe, because lately the the tax load hasn't been shared fairly.

When more and more people are falling into the ranks of the poor and near poor in spite of a decent economy and corporations and the very wealthy keep increasing their wealth something needs looking at.

 

[RealityNow]

Leftist make much ado about the wealthy paying their "fair share".

However, Leftist never define what "wealthy" is or how much is "fair".

Both the Baroness (my wife...get it?) and I work full time and we both make pretty good money. We're getting older so we're both beginning to reach the pinnacle of our salaries. Our salaries are close to being the same.

A few years ago we sat-down and figured-out how much money we paid in taxes--all taxes: federal income, state income, sales tax, sin tax, gas tax, ad valorem, property tax, rain tax, etc.

And what we found was that we were paying 50% of our earnings on taxes. This is similar to what we had heard from friends and family who had undertaken the same exercise.

This means that my wife works a full-time job to pay our taxes--nothing more. I work to pay all our other bills including making a car payment so she can go back-and-forth to work to earn an income that is confiscated by the government.

Now keep in mind our calculations did not take into account "invisible taxes" (corporate taxes, inflation) so ultimately, we honestly have no idea what we are paying in taxes (and neither do you!).

Anyway, I say all of this to simply ask that when it comes to tax rates...what's fair?

The Tax Codes have all that information laid out.

You forget that Republican modified the Tax Code with Trump's Tax Cuts ...

I think reading would be beneficial rather than the spin cycle of claiming Democrats said or did this or that.

You should go back and look at the 'HISTORY OF TAXES" and relate that to the Performance of America... and you will find that when Taxes were Higher on Corporation PEOPLE DID BETTER, AND PEOPLE HAD PROGRESSIVE INCOME AND BENEFITS... because Corporations could use that expanse to reduce their taxes.

Now with Corporate taxes low, they don't have to rely on deduction from paying employees, and they don't have to provide benefits, because they no longer need to give it to reduce their tax liability, because 'CORPORATE TAXES ARE SO LOW.... they can use everything else to avoid paying taxes and they don't have a concern about paying people, because paying people more won't give them a benefit on taxes, because they can already operate without paying any taxes.

that is purely a Republican Construct, because in the past 50 yrs there has NEVER been a Republican President who did not lower Corporate Taxes and every time they did, the entire economy SUFFERED and the National Debt increased. and what the public got was "Inflation"...

Republican Narratives "NEVER" tell the truth about anything... because they know the Republican Constituency, will fall for anything, as long as its about denying something to the general public, because they don't want anyone to have anything, if they can't claim it all for themselves.

Truthfully, if Republican could push a program that said, Medicare and Medicaid and Public Assistance was ONLY FOR WHITE PEOPLE, they'd be willing to fund it with a $5 Trillion dollars, to make sure white people got anything and everything they wanted. (People know that's the truth, but most are too afraid to say so, and others don't want others to know that's how they think).

 

[Lucky 1]

And without labor none of capitalists dreams gets ever comes to fruition. Labor is essential to capitalism even thought a lot of conservatives like to claim labor is just an obstructing factor in making money. You need labor to make money.

Massive famines are not caused by socialism. They are caused by a shortage of food or a lack of distribution systems or both.

Massive famines are not caused by socialism???? That's a good one!!! Tell us another one! LMAO.......

Been to Venezuela lately?????

 

[RealityNow]

Yes, we do actually. Because it's overwhelmingly baby boomers and other rural Trump supporters who are getting that money whether they like to admit it or not.

Here is The Numbers to back up your point:

Blacks @ (13%) of a population of 300,000,000 people in U.S = 39,000,000 / 59.1 percent who live on 80 of their income from social security of 39,000,000 people = *23,049,000 people.

Whites @ (70%) of a population of 300,000,000 people in U.S. = 210,000,000 / 46 percent who live on 80 of their income from social security of 210,000,000 people = *96,600,000 people.

Result: *73,550,000* MORE white people than black people live on 80 of their income from social security.

The Ratio of white people living on SSI is 4.17% to every 1% of black people living on SSI.
The low "base line" average of over 57,000,000 million MORE white people collect social security “than there is black people who exist in this nation”, simply put, this equals 22.23% more whites than " the whole populations of blacks" in this country, as being the ones who collect public program service benefits.

On an average of over 73.5 million “more” whites people collect benefits than the total number of black people. Is a FACT. (That number is parallel to the entire volume of people who voted Republican, for Trump. )

_______________________

Let the Republican block funding the Government and watch how short of a time before, Republican Constituency wake up, and start screaming "Where's My Check"? These types of people, don't face the truth, until it hits them personally as an individual, in the pocket.

 

[RealityNow]

Massive famines are not caused by socialism???? That's a good one!!! Tell us another one! LMAO.......

Been to Venezuela lately?????

....and you haven't been to Venezuela either... So you are only regurgitating what right wing media fed you.

You also ignored, the U.S. resentment of Venezuela trying to uplift its people and not giving everything to Corporate Interest.

"Venezuela's crisis has been deepened by U.S. sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry. In March, it also sanctioned the Venezuelan gold mining industry, and in April, it also imposed sanctions against the Central Bank of Venezuela, cutting off that institution's access to U.S. currency and limiting its ability to conduct international transactions.
_________________
America Wealthy Elite, does not want to see any country that devotes resources to uplift the people, because Corporation want the control over peoples lives, to ensure they can get people to work for less than the cost of living. The old Ideology in America has been, was and is, If Corporations keep the people desperate and earning less than the cost of living, no matter how bad corporate work conditions are the people will keep coming to work.
People forget America's Economy was built on the Principles of "Slave Labor", "Indentured Servitude" and "Low Cost Immigrant" labor, mixed with Poor whites low wage labor..
It has never learned nor cared to respect people and pay a living wage, nor does it want to see any other country provide people higher living standards, derived from profits from the Nation's Natural Resources.

The generations that embraced that vile and its ignorance, are dying out day by day... and the younger generation are showing society, they are not going to dedicate their lives to these companies or stay on jobs that disrespect them and don't pay them a wage they can live on. The old guard of Right Wingers are upset because the young are not submitting to them and going back to these jobs that have poor working conditions and terrible pay rates.
The young people are telling the old right wingers, to go do it themselves, if they are so desperate to work for less than a living wage and so desperate to work in conditions that offer no respect to the worker.

Right Wingers keep putting the Republican in office expecting things to change, when its not part of Republican Ideology to change anything of how their system is based on the old, Seek a Slave Level Workers, and Keep them desperate so they keep coming back, keep them politically occupied with "anguish and feed them belligerence'... and like clock work, Republican constituency follows the script that's dictated to them by Republicanism.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Of course; taxes and spending in a reasonably honest government are based on economics. However, If considering fairness is tossed out of the equation we go back to the time of "Let them eat cake". That fairness is being talked about a lot right now is, maybe, because lately the the tax load hasn't been shared fairly.

When more and more people are falling into the ranks of the poor and near poor in spite of a decent economy and corporations and the very wealthy keep increasing their wealth something needs looking at.

Which is why I said look at the tax code, as well as the rest of the post you but out.

 

[Lucky 1]

....and you haven't been to Venezuela either... So you are only regurgitating what right wing media fed you.

Uh....actually I travelled to Venezuela about a 2 years ago. Used go see friends there every year or two .......now all the friends have fled the country and there's no point in going.....

 

[weaver2]

Which is why I said look at the tax code, as well as the rest of the post you but out.

Sorry, I thought "nothing to do with "pay their fair share" bullshit progressives continually pimp." meant you were for totally ignoring fairness.

 

[eohrnberger]

I want to see a specific percentage from you. Stop dancing and put it down. Military spending is not where most of the money is going, and you know it. You're playing the typical leftist games.

'Let the government keep taking more and more, and the government will let you know' ?

 

[beancounter]

Biased poll. If you consider taxes to be "confiscated income" for the wealthy, but just plain old taxes for everyone else, there is no point in this thread.

 

[TurtleDude]

Right. Understood.

This isn't rocket science. The tax code, across the board, needs to be fixed so that rich people do not pay a lower percentage of their overall income in overall taxes than middle income people do.

so you want to treat all sources of revenue exactly the same? but you don't want the rich to pay the same rate as others? hmmm. Maybe the tax code needs to be changed so each person who has a vote pays the same exact amount? It is amazing how people like you complain about the rich paying a lower rate-ON DIFFERENT sources of revenue-but you have no problem with the rich paying far higher actual dollars.

 

[TurtleDude]

Cash is an asset and is subject to the wealth tax. You can't escape a wealth tax. Net worth is net worth.

you want to confiscate valuable property that doesn't generate income. sorry, that isn't going to fly,. that appears to be based purely on envy

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't like it. It would require a huge increase in government bureaucracy and require administering all sales.

utter bullshit. the IRS is far more massive than it would be if we had a sales tax. anyone who has worked for the government in that field knows that income taxes require far more bureaucracy (and intrusion) than retail sales tax

 

[Lucky 1]

you want to confiscate valuable property that doesn't generate income. sorry, that isn't going to fly,. that appears to be based purely on envy

That is exactly what it is ....wealth envy.

These people need to stop worrying about what someone else earns and focus on there own income.

 

[NolanVoyd]

so you want to treat all sources of revenue exactly the same? but you don't want the rich to pay the same rate as others? hmmm. Maybe the tax code needs to be changed so each person who has a vote pays the same exact amount? It is amazing how people like you complain about the rich paying a lower rate-ON DIFFERENT sources of revenue-but you have no problem with the rich paying far higher actual dollars.

Yes. Income is income. Why should it be taxed differently?

 

[weaver2]

That is exactly what it is ....wealth envy. These people need to stop worrying about what someone else earns and focus on there own income.

Most of the people talking about the widening gap in wealth and the plight of the low wage workers are pretty well off themselves. "Wealth envy" is one of those neat little lies conservatives tell themselves so they can deny their part in creating the problem.

 

[bongsaway]

Questions: How much profit are you willing to "allow" any corporation to have annually?
How much wealth are you willing to "allow" any individual to possess?

Those are the more valid questions instead of how much should they be taxed - tax isn't the end game at all. The end game is stripping some people and companies of "too much" wealth without defining "much" or "enough" - which is very disingenuous. I'm asking for a definition of "much" "too much" and "enough" in the end-game context of using taxes to strip them down to those amounts.

This isn't about word semantics, it's about taxes. I don't care how much money an individual or a corporation makes, it's still about taxes and neither you or anyone else on the face of this earth can convince me the top one percent and corporations pay their fair share. How do you claim five billion in profit and yet pay zero in income tax? I have yet to have anyone siding with the ultra rich and multinational corporations answer that question?

 

[screenwriter]

Most of the people talking about the widening gap in wealth and the plight of the low wage workers are pretty well off themselves. "Wealth envy" is one of those neat little lies conservatives tell themselves so they can deny their part in creating the problem.

If all the wealth on the face of the earth were placed into one giant pot and divided equally among every human on the face of the earth - it would take 10 years at the most for the wealth distribution to go back to what we have today. Wealth inequality has always existed and will ALWAYS exist until you can legislate every single person have the identical mindset toward wealth.

 

[screenwriter]

This isn't about word semantics, it's about taxes. I don't care how much money an individual or a corporation makes, it's still about taxes and neither you or anyone else on the face of this earth can convince me the top one percent and corporations pay their fair share. How do you claim five billion in profit and yet pay zero in income tax? I have yet to have anyone siding with the ultra rich and multinational corporations answer that question?

And yet you still refuse to answer what is "fair". How much should a company or individual be allowed to keep? It's easy to moan about the rich because that's what the manifesto dictates. Would you give those same tax breaks to a company that solves our energy problems? Or global warming problems? Or food issues? Or medical issues?
Elon Musk hit the nail on the head with his offer to the UN to end world hunger - "show me the accounting of how you will spend my money to end world hunger and you can have 6 billion to do so". Tax payers deserve no less than that and it isn't happening. Instead the IRS collection army has been implemented that would make the Sheriff of Nottingham jealous. Forget the waste - the fraud - the building of a government machine so large there's no way to police how it spends the monies paid into it be the citizens. Why not have those same IRS bean counters go after the money flowing out the sieve of government spending?

Redirect Notice

www.google.com