They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[Rasputin_Vol]

It raises a few questions.
Myth 5 - if revenue stays the same when the wealthy have higher rates (and the rest have lower rates), then that seems like a good argument for higher rates on the top 1%.
Myth 6 - I see a lot of holes in his data. He gave no info on the fifth quintile (80-99%) which is odd.
- I do not believe that the third quintile (40-59%) has a net rate of negative 15%. He threw things in there like social security but gave no breakdown.
- I do not believe that the fourth quintile (60-79%) averages paying a net of 3%. I spent a lot of time in that quintile and paid a far higher net percentage than that.

On Myth #5, why would you still raise taxes on the rich if it is a net 0? What you should have taken away from that is that if you power taxes, revenues remain constant.

 

[luthervol]

On Myth #5, why would you still raise taxes on the rich if it is a net 0? What you should have taken away from that is that if you power taxes, revenues remain constant.

I would raise taxes on the rich while lowering them on the middle.
Still get the same revenue.

 

[AshG]

Is that a bad thing?

I see that others have already asked the question so I won't make you repeat yourself if you have answered. But... I have asked this question before and I have never seen a good response and it is along the same line: What about diversity makes us 'better'? And does forcing it accomplish that same goal?

I can only really speak out of my experiences here, which along with $1 will get you a small fountain drink at the Circle K.

Multiple denominations don't work... Until they do. Dandridge, TN, has an ecumenical Ministerial Association. All the denominations (except the Catholic parish, by their own choice) pitch in to run the Thrift Store. The Thrift Store is in a warehouse at the edge of the poorest trailer park in the county so residents can walk there. At one time, they even had a computer room where children could do homework and adults could apply for jobs. I don't know if that part is still up and running. If someone needs help and one church can't fill the need, they know who to call. They are better for working together, and the community has benefited from the pastors' constant communication with one another even across denominational lines.

I am a member of two fraternities, one social and one service. My social Fraternity, I served on the discipline and expansion board for nine years. We actually have many chapters at HBCUs. The inclusion of active and alumni from hbcu chapters on that board wasn't just a way to give a wink and nudge that we were diverse; their participation provided the rest of the board with much important background and historical information regarding the hbcu experience that allowed us to provide services and assistance that matched those needs and not just a Boilerplate one size fits none program for everyone to muddle through.

But I'm crossing multiple lines here, back and forth between diversity and inclusion. I believe that it should be the goal of an organization to have a leadership makeup that reflects the population as closely as possible, but without using tokenism to reach that point. Tokenism is just a kindler, gentler, more insidious form of discrimination. A good faith effort should be made but results should not be fabricated.

Inclusion is the understanding that everyone has the ability to contribute to the group identity, purpose, and performance in a meaningful way regardless of their background. For example, my role in organizations often change when I'm unable to walk and find myself in a wheelchair for a period of time; I quite literally see and experience things differently at that point and can offer a different perspective as a result.

I'll finish by combining this all into an example from Napoleon Dynamite. Napoleon was able to tell what cows had eaten based on the flavor of the milk. In the case of the movie, his sample came from a field with wild onions. When you homogenize the milk, bringing in product from multiple cows across multiple fields, you end up with a far better and more desirable product that doesn't taste of onion.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I would raise taxes on the rich while lowering them on the middle.
Still get the same revenue.

Or, you can lower them for everybody.

 

[508mikey]

I can only really speak out of my experiences here, which along with $1 will get you a small fountain drink at the Circle K.

Multiple denominations don't work... Until they do. Dandridge, TN, has an ecumenical Ministerial Association. All the denominations (except the Catholic parish, by their own choice) pitch in to run the Thrift Store. The Thrift Store is in a warehouse at the edge of the poorest trailer park in the county so residents can walk there. At one time, they even had a computer room where children could do homework and adults could apply for jobs. I don't know if that part is still up and running. If someone needs help and one church can't fill the need, they know who to call. They are better for working together, and the community has benefited from the pastors' constant communication with one another even across denominational lines.

I am a member of two fraternities, one social and one service. My social Fraternity, I served on the discipline and expansion board for nine years. We actually have many chapters at HBCUs. The inclusion of active and alumni from hbcu chapters on that board wasn't just a way to give a wink and nudge that we were diverse; their participation provided the rest of the board with much important background and historical information regarding the hbcu experience that allowed us to provide services and assistance that matched those needs and not just a Boilerplate one size fits none program for everyone to muddle through.

But I'm crossing multiple lines here, back and forth between diversity and inclusion. I believe that it should be the goal of an organization to have a leadership makeup that reflects the population as closely as possible, but without using tokenism to reach that point. Tokenism is just a kindler, gentler, more insidious form of discrimination. A good faith effort should be made but results should not be fabricated.

Inclusion is the understanding that everyone has the ability to contribute to the group identity, purpose, and performance in a meaningful way regardless of their background. For example, my role in organizations often change when I'm unable to walk and find myself in a wheelchair for a period of time; I quite literally see and experience things differently at that point and can offer a different perspective as a result.

I'll finish by combining this all into an example from Napoleon Dynamite. Napoleon was able to tell what cows had eaten based on the flavor of the milk. In the case of the movie, his sample came from a field with wild onions. When you homogenize the milk, bringing in product from multiple cows across multiple fields, you end up with a far better and more desirable product that doesn't taste of onion.

 

[volfanhill]

I would raise taxes on the rich while lowering them on the middle.
Still get the same revenue.

Or we could be honest and admit it's an expenditure problem .

 

[AshG]

 

[luthervol]

Or we could be honest and admit it's an expenditure problem .

I've never denied that.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Easy solution. Get rid of the poor people just like The Dead Kennedys "advised".

 

[LouderVol]

Nope. How well do you know the Bible?



Is that really how you think sin is determined? For a Christian... sin is what God says sin is.

It is a matter of prevalence and acceptance. Sin is common among even the most noble and "righteous" people. But would you equate Abraham Lincoln and Hitler simply because both are sinners?

We recognize as does the Bible that a person's character is defined not by the exceptions to his behavior but by his consistent behavior. If a friend told you a lie then confessed it and asked your forgiveness... you wouldn't consider him a "liar". If you found that a friend has lied to you consistently then you would no longer consider him a friend and would call him a liar.

Societies are no different. There are "good", wholesome societies. There are evil and decadent societies. Unfortunately history shows us that the good cycle to bad and remain there until there is some type of "spiritual" renewal of high moral ideals.


I'm not aware of a biblical history of Sodom and Gomorrah prior to Abrams interaction with them. By that point, they were already a very wicked society and had made "progress" to a point where the angels that visited Lot in the form of men were lusted after by men outside the door. They were strangers to the city... so those men tried to "initiate" them into the ways of Sodom.

God knew where His "negotiation" with Abram was going. Not for the sake of a few righteous in the city but for the sake of Abram He was willing to turn His wrath aside. In the end no justification could be found for not destroying those cities.

I equate Hitler and Lincoln in a biblical reference as both children of God. As a fallible person myself it's not on me to judge others.

For historical reference, I would ask the native Americans what they think of Lincoln, and then what they think of Hitler. Most who know their history would place those two a lot closer to each other than some falsely assigned heaven/hell dichtomy you think it is.

I would love to hear your examples of good macro society's.

 

[Vol8188]

I would raise taxes on the rich while lowering them on the middle.
Still get the same revenue.

Why should the rich pay more than they currently are? 40% of taxes for 1% of the population seems like a lot. Especially given they only earn 20% of the income

But to be fair at least you’re not lowering taxes for rich people in democratic ran states like Biden and Pelosi just tried to do (SALT)

 

[luthervol]

Why should the rich pay more than they currently are? 40% of taxes for 1% of the population seems like a lot. Especially given they only earn 20% of the income

But to be fair at least you’re not lowering taxes for rich people in democratic ran states like Biden and Pelosi just tried to do (SALT)

Because they are benefiting more.
Kind of like a football ticket in a suite will cost more than one in the upper deck of the end zone.
Both are for the same game but the required contribution is different.

 

[825VOL]

Because they are benefiting more.
Kind of like a football ticket in a suite will cost more than one in the upper deck of the end zone.
Both are for the same game but the required contribution is different.

Bad comparison. You are comparing something that is optional at an extra cost to something that is a mandatory cost where you have no option

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Because they are benefiting more.

So? Revenue doesn't increase? Sounds like you just want to penalize the rich just for the sake of envy.

 

[luthervol]

So? Revenue doesn't increase? Sounds like you just want to penalize the rich just for the sake of envy.

I do not believe that zero taxes would result in the same revenue (17%).
Where does the consistent 17% amount come from?
There are obviously taxes being paid. The make-up of that 17% is what I'm talking about.

 

[Vol8188]

Because they are benefiting more.
Kind of like a football ticket in a suite will cost more than one in the upper deck of the end zone.
Both are for the same game but the required contribution is different.

I’m listening. How are they benefiting more

 

[luthervol]

I’m listening. How are they benefiting more

Self evident - they are in the top 1%.

 

[Vol8188]

Self evident - they are in the top 1%.

Not self evident. Where’s the benefit and how is it above that of the poor?

How does 1% of the population receive more than 40% of the benefit of government? If it’s not more than 40%, than you would have to agree their taxes are appropriate or even over taxed

 

[luthervol]

Not self evident. Where’s the benefit and how is it above that of the poor?

It is self evident.
I don't think anyone has ever been taxed out of the top 1%. In fact, they seem to be increasing their share of the wealth exponentially more than everyone else.......again - self evident benefit.

 

[Vol8188]

It is self evident.
I don't think anyone has ever been taxed out of the top 1%. In fact, they seem to be increasing their share of the wealth exponentially more than everyone else.......again - self evident benefit.

Again you’ve failed to define their benefit. You’ve failed to state how it’s above 40% of the total federal benefits. You previously used an example of fire departments, education, and police but both of those are local level services.

So how do they receive more than 40% of the federal benefits? Can you provide anything

 

[luthervol]

Again you’ve failed to define their benefit. You’ve failed to state how it’s above 40% of the total federal benefits. You previously used an example of fire departments, education, and police but both of those are local level services.

So how do they receive more than 40% of the federal benefits? Can you provide anything

I already did - it's self evident.
They have been provided a society in which they make millions a year. The continued safety, health, and wealth of that society is what allows them the opportunity to grow their wealth at a rate that far outpaces others.

 

[Vol8188]

I already did - it's self evident.
They have been provided a society in which they make millions a year. The continued safety, health, and wealth of that society is what allows them the opportunity to grow their wealth at a rate that far outpaces others.

Weren’t the poor also provided that same society? What’s the difference?

 

[sjt18]

I equate Hitler and Lincoln in a biblical reference as both children of God.

Please establish that either was a "child of God" in the "biblical sense". In John 8, Jesus called men who were in the moral sense greatly superior to either of those men... children of Satan.

As a fallible person myself it's not on me to judge others.

Where did you get that idea? It is not in our power to condemn people. But there are numerous commands in the NT and examples both from Christ and the Apostles showing that we are to take stands against evil behavior. Do you recall the story of John the Baptist? Jesus called him the greatest of all prophets. He was beheaded for "judging" Herod's adultery.

Even in rescuing the woman caught in adultery, Jesus commanded her to "go your way and sin no more". 1 John is one of the "love" epistles and is full of "judgment". Matthew 18 establishes that if someone is known to be in habitual sin that a person has a responsibility to confront them. If they do not respond, two are to go. Eventually the church is to remove that person from the congregation until they repent.

Practically the whole book of 1 Corinthians was a rebuke of behavior within that congregation... which included acts considered incest. There is at least an allusion to some returning to homosexuality.

The abuse of the "judge not" passages is not "Christian" in nature. It is worldly. It is a carnal attempt to "make peace" with sin.

For historical reference, I would ask the native Americans what they think of Lincoln, and then what they think of Hitler. Most who know their history would place those two a lot closer to each other than some falsely assigned heaven/hell dichtomy you think it is.

I didn't assign such a dichotomy. Christians have tried to lay claim to Lincoln and I have no means to know his heart. He made Christian affirming statements but politically he needed the zeal of Christians who were the driving force behind ending slavery.

If you do not think Lincoln was better in the temporal, human sense... in the sense of general character and intentions... than Hitler. You truly need some help.

We can have a discussion on American Indians if you like. There were some grotesque abuses of them at various times. But the idea that Europeans came in and attacked them and "stole their land" is WAY off. The best estimates for Indian population in ALL of North America when Columbus arrived... is about 40 million. That's Panama to the Arctic. For reference, grab a world map and look at California. The entire population in NA in 1492 was about the same as CA now. IOW's, there were wide expanses of unused and undeveloped land. Far from being a "change"... Europeans were just a new, more technologically advanced enemy. The tribes didn't live in some sort of peaceful, unspoiled Eden. They attacked each other over land claims. They raided and killed each other for food and supplies. They stole women and children. They enslaved one another. You like many today see them as a single group. They NEVER saw themselves that way.

Even in all of that... the greatest harm done to native tribes was NOT bullets or intentional. Europeans brought diseases that previous plagues had left them greatly immune to. Disease was the cause of death for most natives who died... not exposure or sabers.

There is no comparison between the actual intentional abuses of the native Tribes... as bad as they were... and Hitler's very intentional slaughter of people he considered inferior and obstacles to his master race. Lincoln's part in that... wouldn't even come close.

 

[sjt18]

I would love to hear your examples of good macro society's.

Can you be more specific?

 

[luthervol]

Weren’t the poor also provided that same society? What’s the difference?

Much like the upper deck end zone seat provided the same game.
On a macroscale, pretty much the same. On a microscale, vast differences.

So no, the poor were not provided the same society.
Do a composite of the first 20 years of a random sample of 100 people from the top 1%, compare that to a composite of the first 20 years of a random sample of 100 people in the lowest economic quartile.
There is no way any sane person would conclude that what society offered or provided those two groups was even remotely equal.