"Fair Share"?

[KentheOrange]

For zero expectations we could call them presidents for the time being.

 

[dreVol]

For zero qualifications we could call them presidents for the time being.

fyp
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[RespectTradition]

fair share = all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

 

[utgibbs]

So Obama's deficit reduction plan is being sold as having the "rich" pay their "fair share".

Honestly, I don't have a problem with changing some of the tax rates at the upper end a bit or modifying how hedge fund managers report their income but this "fair share" stuff drives me nuts.

Could someone please define "fair share" for me?

It's like a "coherent run offense" and irony - hard to define precisely but you know it when you see it.

Progressivity is the first component.

Everyone has seized upon the idea that half the country pays no taxes. This is a canard, propaganda Stalin himself would be proud of. The total effective tax rate demonstrates the disparity:

Moreover, each tax bracket tends to receive as much income as they pay out:

To use the conservative propaganda then, we see that indeed the Welfare Dads are in the top quintile, as they receive the vast majority of those tax revenues (as we all know).

In this time of "austerity" then, the fair share should be adjusting this "income received" especially in the top quintile, IMHO.

 

[lawgator1]

The phrase "fair share" is frustratingly imprecise, I agree.

From a political point of view, its much more attractive for Obama to say that (because it implies that the wealthy have not been paying an adequate amount of taxes) versus saying "shared sacrifice," because the latter implies negativity for the middle class going forward.

Polls show a substantial majority of Americans believe that the wealthy should be taxed more than they are. When you add in whether they should be taxed more alongside spending cuts in order to balance the budget, the numbers jump even more.

Whether you agree or disagree, it is and will continue to be an effective strategy for Obama to paint the GOP as the party of the privileged, as in bed with Wall Street and finance executives so as to create tax loopholes for the wealthiest to get fatter while everyone else suffers through an economic trudgery that (again, like it or not) a lot of people blame on the bankers and the fund managers.

Taking advantage of the frustration out there -- and the perception that its because the wealthy have stacked the deck -- is pretty smart politics.

 

[utvolpj]

smart politics = lying to the American people? Looks like some old threads need to be revisited

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Taking advantage of the frustration out there -- and the perception that its because the wealthy have stacked the deck -- is pretty smart politics.

Yea his Strongly Disapprove ratings went from 42% last week to 41% this week. Break out the champaign

 

[sjt18]

It's like a "coherent run offense" and irony - hard to define precisely but you know it when you see it.

Progressivity is the first component.

Nope. No matter how many times you repeat that lie to yourself or others... there is nothing fair about taking a higher % of taxes from one person than another simply because the first person was talented or industrious or hard-working enough to make more.

Everyone has seized upon the idea that half the country pays no taxes....

And this situation is true ONLY because we have the "progressive" system that you so consistently advocate.

Want to see a "fair" tax code? Try the Fair Tax where consumers pay but with protection of those closer to the subsistence level of existence.

Or have a two part flat income tax. Personal- A standard deduction equal to 50% of the median single income plus nothing for individuals and a flat deduction for families worth 150% of the median family income. All income after that taxed at 10-30%.

Corporate- Flat .5-.75% of revenues.

Something would be needed in the middle for small business... but you should be able to get the gist.

STOP USING THE TAX CODE TO OFFEND PERSONAL FREEDOM BY MANIPULATING BEHAVIOR.

In this time of "austerity" then, the fair share should be adjusting this "income received" especially in the top quintile, IMHO.

IF we bought your graphs and numbers which have historically been biased and unreliable... often completely untethered from the actual facts... you have STILL not proposed a solution that will make it better. Like Obama, you have proposed nothing but doubling down again on things that have already proven not to work... EVER.... ANYWHERE.

 

[sjt18]

Taking advantage of the frustration out there -- and the perception that its because the wealthy have stacked the deck -- is pretty smart politics.

So effectively you advocate deception as a valid means of retaining power when your policies are abject failures and your ideals have proven to be false?

Not that surprising... statists and their ideologies have always depended on lying to the masses.

 

[MG1968]

Hell no - too much pressure. I'm thinking "entity" or something else with zero expectations.

proletariat, why look for a new term when history gives you the perfect one?

 

[gsvol]

 

[MG1968]

the notion that democrats are "for the poor" is laughable, at best. They will whore themselves out to the highest bidder faster than a Kardashian sister.

 

[lawgator1]

Yea his Strongly Disapprove ratings went from 42% last week to 41% this week. Break out the champaign

1) The disapprove rating is not the real measure. Its who is going to vote for him over Perry/Romnye, or at least not vote for Perry/Romney, that would be a better measure.

2) Its a long term strategy. Right now, people thinking of Obama and 2012 are just frustrated with lack of progress on the economy. This is a great strength for the GOP right now, but when it comes time for Obama to run against the GOP nominee, the message will be that the nominee is part of the tea party movement, which has been hijacked by big business and Wall Street to avoid paying taxes while the middle class continues to get screwed.

So effectively you advocate deception as a valid means of retaining power when your policies are abject failures and your ideals have proven to be false?

Not that surprising... statists and their ideologies have always depended on lying to the masses.

Your assumption is that it is incorrect to say that the wealthiest should be taxed more. I am making no assumption, one way or the other.

In terms of your assumption, the reality is that the very top earners and corporations have been doing much, much better in the last 3-4 years than have middle class Americans. Add to that the push by the GOP for cuts to programs that the middle class perceive as theirs, whilst either keeping taxes on the top the same or even lowering them in some cases, its a fairly easy argument to make that the GOP policy platform favors the wealthy.

Again, you might disagree with that point of view. I can conceive of some pretty good arguments that, since the Bush tax cuts, the system has been even more of a sham, favoring the wealthy, than ever before and that this needs to be corrected, for the good of the country. I can also see the alternative point of view, that increased taxes on the wealthy will reduce incentive to hire. I can then see the counter to that argument, which is that despite historically low real-term tax liabilities for the wealthy and corporations, they aren't investing any of it. And on and on the argument goes.

Bottom line: Those voters describing themselves as moderates favor increased taxes on the wealthy at something like a 65-35 split. Obama will tap into that come time to discuss how to deal with the national debt.

 

[MG1968]

I wasn't all that good in math, but I still understand that 15% of $50 million is a helluva lot more than 25% of $75 thousand.

Obama and the democrats have latched on to the percentages, hoping the American people are too stupid to understand that what's important is the dollar amount being paid.

 

[utvolpj]

Bottom line: Those voters describing themselves as moderates favor increased taxes on the wealthy at something like a 65-35 split. Obama will tap into that come time to discuss how to deal with the national debt.

wonder if the poll used Obama's definition of wealthy (you know, those millionaires/billionaires making $200k). It should actually make you scared that Americans are more in favor of taking other people's money than earning their own

 

[gsvol]

 

[lawgator1]

wonder if the poll used Obama's definition of wealthy (you know, those millionaires/billionaires making $200k). It should actually make you scared that Americans are more in favor of taking other people's money than earning their own

And that would be different than the wealthy exactly how?

Everyone wants the deficit reduced, but no one wants to be stuck with the bill.

 

[sjt18]

Your assumption is that it is incorrect to say that the wealthiest should be taxed more. I am making no assumption, one way or the other.

No. My assumption is that the left is knowingly misleading people on an issue and you are giving a hearty two thumbs up.

In terms of your assumption, the reality is that the very top earners and corporations have been doing much, much better in the last 3-4 years than have middle class Americans.

Yes. People who have worked, saved, and been smarter with their money have benefitted from having done so... and that extends from top earners to the middle class. Your assumption is that these people being responsible is somehow to blame for others having a tough go... while the opposite is actually true.

Add to that the push by the GOP for cuts to programs that the middle class perceive as theirs, whilst either keeping taxes on the top the same or even lowering them in some cases, its a fairly easy argument to make that the GOP policy platform favors the wealthy.

I know ALOT of middle class people. In fact, I am not sure I personally engage anyone right now who even Obama would consider "rich". NO ONE I know thinks it is a good idea to tax job creators more. ALL of them know that those programs are rife with fraud and abuse and MUST BE REFORMED.

Yes... scare tactics work. Lies work. That's how the propagandists of statism have always done it. Goebbels would be proud of the effort of the left to demonize "the rich".

I can conceive of some pretty good arguments that, since the Bush tax cuts, the system has been even more of a sham, favoring the wealthy, than ever before and that this needs to be corrected, for the good of the country.

Yeah... I can see how tax cuts that create jobs and pay increases would be a horrible thing right now for folks who cannot find a job and are forced to live off gov't programs... great point.

I can also see the alternative point of view, that increased taxes on the wealthy will reduce incentive to hire.

That isn't true. That is a very fundamental mistake that leads you to all sorts of false assumptions and conclusions. Increased taxes suppress the ability of people to create wealth and expand the economy. It converts capital that might otherwise be used to build wealth to nothing but consumption without a return to the economy.

The issue here isn't whether we want people to get money from the wealthy or not. The issue is whether we want them to contribute to the nation's wealth to get the money or have gov't confiscate capital for their consumption with a net decline in the nation's wealth.

Imagine yourself in a "Survivor" type of situation. The stuff of survival (wood, shelter, food, etc) is the currency. Does it make more sense for someone who gathers food to share with someone who gathers fire wood or someone who sits around doing nothing all day? Which contributes to their survival? Which model encourages more people to stop working or even refuse to work and demand what they are "entitled" to?

I can then see the counter to that argument, which is that despite historically low real-term tax liabilities for the wealthy and corporations, they aren't investing any of it. And on and on the argument goes.

No. Once you tether this argument to the real world it ends pretty quickly. The reason companies are not investing is very, very simple: risks. They don't know what their future taxes are going to be. They don't know what regulation is going to do to their costs. They don't know what the current admins support of unions will do to labor. They don't know what mandated costs are going to be added. In short, the left's whole program has frozen them in place. The safest bet they have right now is to do nothing.

If you knew that your property taxes were going up by 50%, insurance was going to double, and your variable interest rate was going to triple... would you go out and buy the most house you could? That is EXACTLY what you are asking investors to do with their money.

Bottom line: Those voters describing themselves as moderates favor increased taxes on the wealthy at something like a 65-35 split. Obama will tap into that come time to discuss how to deal with the national debt.

IOW's he will lie and play class warfare just like statists have always done. BTW, that is how the fascists and communists attained power too.

 

[BeecherVol]

And that would be different than the wealthy exactly how?

Everyone wants the deficit reduced, but no one wants to be stuck with the bill.

What's "fair" is getting the political crap (which is all this is) out of the way. If you can't fix or won't fix the spending problem, (which your foolish or don't care if you can't see that) don't even think about asking for more from anybody.

 

[utvolpj]

And that would be different than the wealthy exactly how?

Everyone wants the deficit reduced, but no one wants to be stuck with the bill.

Obama thinks (and has said) that the millionaires/billionaires need to pay their share yet his target is anyone > $200k. I don't view someone making 6 figures as a billionaire. Do you?

the bill is there no matter what. What the gov't is doing is they want a raise to fix their spending problem. What most people in the US do is spend less to pay off that debt since the magical raise isn't coming.

easiest solution on the board is to spend less and use the current revenue to pay off the debt. Of course there's no way to demonize the rich in that scenario so it won't be considered by this WH

 

[golfballs]

Union bosses should pay their fair share.

and I think union workers should be willing to take pay cuts so more workers can get hired.

 

[theFallGuy]

union bosses are willing to have america lose jobs if it doesn't specifically help them.

AKA: Boeing case

 

[utvolpj]

unions are a protected class in 2011 America

 

[golfballs]

so unions don't have to pay their fair share?

 

[sjt18]

And that would be different than the wealthy exactly how?

Everyone wants the deficit reduced, but no one wants to be stuck with the bill.

If your family budget is in the red... which is the better way to overcome that problem... sell your car and use the money for food or use the car to start a vending route? One way, you pay your bills by employing the available capital asset toward wealth creation. The other way you consume your credit and ultimately make your situation much worse.

Liberals/progressives have ALWAYS chosen option two by advocating the purposeful misuse, disuse, or under-use of capital resources.