"Fair Share"?

#51
#51
sjt18 said:
No. My assumption is that the left is knowingly misleading people on an issue and you are giving a hearty two thumbs up.

Which assumes that it is misleading to argue that the wealthy pay lower taxes than they should. Its arguable, in both directions.

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. 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.

Two problems. One is that there is no reliable evidence that taxing the wealthy will reduce jobs. The theories on which that contention is based have just not held up over the last decade or so. Second, I agree that there needs to be reform of entitlements. I think one can make a fair argument that, in addition to cuts in spending, more revenue from the wealthy would not hurt the economy appreciably and would be justified in debt reduction.


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".

The other side argues that it is a lie to claim that lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations will create jobs. As the wealthier have been doing very well, and as corporate profits are through the roof and still there is no hiring, there is much compelling evidence to support that argument from the left.


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. 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.

Again, your assumption is highly debatable and not borne out by evidence of the last 10-20 years.

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.

That's a philosophical debate about taxes in general. The tea party advances that argument, but its a cover for the real claim, which is to stop taking tax dollars from the wealthy and distributing them to the poor. That's an interesting philosophical debate, as I say, but in reality the tea party is coopted by those who have convinced its members that its right to fight for the wealthy to keep more dollars. I would argue that, in that respect, the rank and file TPers have been duped.


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?

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.


This is your problem. The economy is much more complicated than that.

If you really believed it, you need to pay back the government for every cent paid for any public education for you and your family, all money spent on roads on which you drive, and all money spent on the military to protect you. Among other things.
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.

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.
Click to expand...


It behooves your personal position to argue in favor of a pay for everything as you go system of, well, life. But if you really had to do that, you would find that it sucks at a major level.
 
#52
#52
lawgator1 said:
It behooves your personal position to argue in favor of a pay for everything as you go system of, well, life. But if you really had to do that, you would find that it sucks at a major level.
Click to expand...

It doesn't suck at all. Only debt I have is my house and it will be paid off in a few short years (and I could make money on the sale if needed). All it takes is a little self-control. Don't buy things (start/continue programs) that you can't pay for
 
#53
#53
utvolpj said:
It doesn't suck at all. Only debt I have is my house and it will be paid off in a few short years (and I could make money on the sale if needed). All it takes is a little self-control. Don't buy things (start/continue programs) that you can't pay for
Click to expand...


No, that's not correct. You owe for public education, for public roads on which you travel every day, for military protection, for public good and services you use every hour, etc.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

As long as Progressives continue to tell the whopper that reducing the rate of spending increase from 8% to 4% amounts to a "draconian cut" in "vital programs"... we're getting nowhere.

Do you really believe that it is sustainable for gov't spending to grow more than twice as fast as the economy on avg? You CANNOT take more out of the economy without hurting growth. The budget can ONLY be dealt with by cutting spending OR reducing the rate of growth and then having the economy out grow it.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
No, that's not correct. You owe for public education, for public roads on which you travel every day, for military protection, for public good and services you use every hour, etc.
Click to expand...

How exactly am I in debt for those? I pay my taxes and would be fine if that's all it went towards. Seems some of those are written down in a document somewhere....

and you're also being pretty ridiculous with that. The huge amount of social programs are the ones that will break the bank, not constitutional ones like the military
 
#56
#56
LG, if investors are withholding capital because the risks are too high... including tax increases... what will it tell them to do if their taxes go up?

FTR, the Bush tax cuts resulted in an almost immediate recovery from recession and a very rapid expansion of the national wealth, employment, and... revenues to the federal gov't. The left keeps trying the abject LIE that those tax cuts led to the current recession. They didn't. This recession is almost entirely the product of gov't encouraging people who could not afford houses to buy them anyway... and a not insignificant side effect of a mass oversupply of some types of housing.
 
#57
#57
This is your problem. The economy is much more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
No. The basic concept is not. You cannot pay a large percentage of the population to consume and not contribute. You simply can't do it.

If you really believed it, you need to pay back the government for every cent paid for any public education for you and your family, all money spent on roads on which you drive, and all money spent on the military to protect you. Among other things.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? My tax bill both direct and hidden MORE than covers my benefit from those things.... If we view it in my net contribution to national wealth even more so.

I am paying MUCH more than my share in both respects.
 
#58
#58
That's a philosophical debate about taxes in general. The tea party advances that argument, but its a cover for the real claim, which is to stop taking tax dollars from the wealthy and distributing them to the poor. That's an interesting philosophical debate, as I say, but in reality the tea party is coopted by those who have convinced its members that its right to fight for the wealthy to keep more dollars. I would argue that, in that respect, the rank and file TPers have been duped.
Click to expand...
Really? You would say that? TPer's are largely middle class. They have a fairly high percentage of small business owners. IOW's, they ARE the ones paying the bills.

If by "poor" you mean those who consume without contributing or having contributed then yes. They do NOT have a right to consume without contributing. They do NOT have a right to anyone else's property to include the "rich" just because they have decided or have been convinced that they are entitled to something for nothing.

You accuse others of being "duped" when you twist yourself into a knot so tight that you can't see the plain, direct, mathematically proven truth in front of your eyes.
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
No, that's not correct. You owe for public education, for public roads on which you travel every day, for military protection, for public good and services you use every hour, etc.
Click to expand...

In regards to those specific things should "everybody" pay and "pay" the same? Considering the use is relatively the same.
Is that "fair"?
 
#61
#61
BeecherVol said:
In regards to those specific things should "everybody" pay and "pay" the same? Considering the use is relatively the same.
Is that "fair"?
Click to expand...

The millionaires and billionaires should get special lanes for their exclusive use in exchange for higher taxes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
110915bumperstickermore.gif


FreePie2.jpg
 
#63
#63
Watching Al Sharpton on MSNBC right now, didn't even know he had his own show (shows how much I watch tv I guess). All this nonsense about fair share, middle class getting screwed by the rich, etc, makes me want to throw my TV out the window.

People seriously just buy this crap.
 
#64
#64
Then this silliness about jobs created under Clinton and not created under Bush....with no context as to the economic situation both walked into.
 
#69
#69
I'm actually not against a progressive system of some sort, I just think this notion of "fair" is bogus.
 
#70
#70
rjd970 said:
I'm actually not against a progressive system of some sort, I just think this notion of "fair" is bogus.
Click to expand...

Charging one group higher taxes than you charge another group is just wrong. If it was based on anything other than 'groups' made by income division everyone else would see it as the bigotry that it is. Just because they are outnumbered doesn't mean they should be discriminated against.
 
#71
#71
RespectTradition said:
Charging one group higher taxes than you charge another group is just wrong. If it was based on anything other than 'groups' made by income division everyone else would see it as the bigotry that it is. Just because they are outnumbered doesn't mean they should be discriminated against.
Click to expand...

But here is my take....the reality is everybody can't be millionaires, and saying that everybody has an equal opportunity to be "rich" if they were just hard working and smart enough isn't true. Just the way it is.

I hesitate because the system rewards hard work, determination, and intelligence. I really do understand that argument. But the simple truth is we all know all those qualities don't guarantee wealth, and not having them doesn't preclude it. I wouldn't necessarily call it discrimination, but when you have the top earners in a democratic country controlling the majority of the wealth, the system will be progressive. Like it or not.

:peace2:
 
#72
#72
a progressive tax structure violates the equal protection clause. Why this isn't stated more is beyond me. Eliminate all deductions, credits and so on and move to a flat 15% income tax at all levels, you will still have "the rich" paying astronomically higher dollar amounts to the government than the poor and middle class.
 
#74
#74
If you we really want "FAIR", then everyone should pay the same %. No loop holes and no party can play the class game. If you want a new program, then it costs everyone.
 
#75
#75
I was listening to the rap station on XM coming into work this morning. And some bozo called in and was complaining that Obama hasn't helped his people at all since he took over. That this country hasn't changed. But its not his fault, that the rest of the establishment won't let Obama help his people.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top