Tax Related: What does 'Fair Share' mean?

[MJinZ]

My occupation has no bearing on this discussion. Suffice to say, I work in the private sector.

High wages are basically a direct result of low costs.

Unless you're Einstein.

And you ain't no Einstein.

 

[Red Dawn]

The top bracket was above 70% from 1936-1981, above 80% from 1940-1963, and peaked at 94% in 1945.

Hmmmm isn't it during that time America prospered the most?

 

[khon]

Hmmmm isn't during that the time America prospered the most?

Indeed it is, which is one of the ways you can tell that trickledown economics is a scam.

 

[Kappo]

Hmmmm isn't during that the time America prospered the most?

How many social programs were there during that time? How many people had an entitlement attitude that made them feel like they shouldn't have to work for an entire lifetime? During that time period (1945) people were shunned for being lazy or not producing, now they are revered.

 

[Red Dawn]

How many social programs were there during that time? How many people had an entitlement attitude that made them feel like they shouldn't have to work for an entire lifetime? During that time period (1945) people were shunned for being lazy or not producing, now they are revered.

They are?

 

[gingermeggs]

Having been on both sides of the fence (my mom had 3-4 jobs at a time when I grew up and we were still mostly below poverty), I don't really care what people make. There is always opportunity to do better.

I was raised with the mentality that if I wanted something I had to earn it and work for it. So I did (and still do). Why should someone else be different? I'm willing to bet I donate more money and time to causes in a year than you have your entire life. I don't expect everyone to. I do it because I like it.

What happens when everyone just wants the free, bare minimum ride? No one is producing anything and nothing happens. Your version of utopia is not human nature. If you think for one second you are going to change thousands of years of human nature with a forum post, go back to your bong and food service job and start planning.

You really think that if someone works really hard and does things better than anyone else, that they should be penalized? That's more of a rhetorical question for you to answer for yourself, not to explain yourself to me.

Would I rather give my money to the poor instead of things like roads and schools? No. Would I rather give my money to the poor instead of some crapbag politician who wants to put a fountain in the middle of city hall? Yes.

You refute what I say, but you do not offer a solution to the problem which is the corruption in governance.
Human kind has been here for 2million years, it has had a late hybridization with the smarter but socially inept neanderthal about 40,000 years ago and ever since then it's been progressing in leaps and bounds, mostly during periods of social/cultural upheaval and climatic crisis....yet you seem to think were got a evolutionary dead end coming- I totally disagree with your perspective, you call an ethically sound world- Utopia "the perfect place".
Nothings perfect, but are we aware of where we are now?

You are saint you give "money" to the poor- In god we trust!
The opportunities are drying up and as a direct result of the natural collusion that capitalism induces, turning market place into supply monopolies thus creating labour slavery.
So I tell you this you will change, because you will have no alternative.

No I will not indulge in the common placebos illicit or not- I will stay free in spirit, because you can't take that away from me.
I ain't buying your jive weed man!
You talk about people that are doing things better then everybody else, individuals like everybody else.

 

[gingermeggs]

How many social programs were there during that time? How many people had an entitlement attitude that made them feel like they shouldn't have to work for an entire lifetime? During that time period (1945) people were shunned for being lazy or not producing, now they are revered.

Or being shot dead in a war zone. WHAT A WONDERFULLY PROSPEROUS TIME IT WAS!

 

[Craig234]

He's a raving progressive who wants everyone else to pay for all the horse shit programs he wants. People are starving. Give me a fucking break! Show me some stats on people who starved to death in the U.S.

It's the guilt trip laid at the feet of people who work and contribute to society by those that like to get up when the sun is warm and high in the sky. Don't fall for it. You're paying too much right now because the majority of it is wasted.

gingermeggs is not a citizen of the U.S. based on his posts I've read over time. He has no problems telling us how we should be doing things because the impact on him is zero.

They don't have to lose their lives to starvation. If they were they could slap a police officer or rob a bank and get meals in prison.

How about asking how many are malnourished? How many get serious diseases in part from that? Why we're looking for the first time in a long time at not increasing life expectancy?

How about asking how many homeless we have? Our incarceration rate (highest in the western world)?

Not too consistent with your glowing version. Apart from that, we could keep having the middle class slide into the poor, with sustinence but less and less wealth.

All the while the rich getting a bigger and bigger share.

In Latin America where the wealth was land and natural resources, you saw the few rich own about all of it, while the people hoped for work to get just enough to eat, and faced no political power and the government protected the rich, killing, torturing the people who wanted the people to get more.

We could keep moving in that direction - just fine with you and others who say 'the rich should get as much as possible, they deserve it all' apparently.

For the last century, generations of average people did better each generation - rich and poor, once the big concentration of wealth that existed in 1900 (average income adjusted for inflation $10,000 a year) was reduced. But since Reagan, there have been historic shifts for the rich's favor, the class war the rich are winning Warren Buffet said, with the masses of Americans making no more money but shooting up in debt, while the rich have gone up hundreds of percent in income after inflation.

What naturally follows is political power following money, and if a few rich have more and more of the wealth, they can protect it, which is what they're doing.

Democracy can let the masses reign that in, which is why there's such a major media right-wing machine to get people to think they shouldn't people like you fall for.

You say 'programs' with a sneer that are for 'other people', clueless that you are advocating not for the working person, but against them for the ultra rich.

You know what they call a country that follows what you ask for, oligarchy, with a whole lot of powerless poor people.

The masses should fight for their interests in the 'class war' now being won by the other side, not do nothing as you ask.

 

[Kappo]

They are?

We throw money at their feet like they are. We don't want them to get skilled or be able to fend for themselves, we just want to give them stuff so they don't have to.

Or being shot dead in a war zone. WHAT A WONDERFULLY PROSPEROUS TIME IT WAS!

I agree here We may have had a monetarily prosperous time, but we had a lot of death and disease and war. Guess what has prevented people from dying in such ways? Progression. Guess what drives progression? Incentives to innovate and being able to prosper from making strides. Guess what funds those incentives. The very thing you want to take away from those innovators. Funny how that works.

 

[Hacp]

This isn't about trickle down economics. Its about fairness. Why should someone who works hard and play by the rules pay taxes to support the pensions of union workers?

 

[IGBT]

the greedy liberals want more of your earned income. YOU earn it but they want it. Because your an achiever, you need to be punished.

 

[gingermeggs]

We throw money at their feet like they are. We don't want them to get skilled or be able to fend for themselves, we just want to give them stuff so they don't have to.

They must pee their pants with joy, because of their despairity.



I agree here We may have had a monetarily prosperous time, but we had a lot of death and disease and war. Guess what has prevented people from dying in such ways? Progression. Guess what drives progression? Incentives to innovate and being able to prosper from making strides. Guess what funds those incentives. The very thing you want to take away from those innovators. Funny how that works.

I am not taking away nothing, just running from yomassa!
What has your system invented lately except increasing poverty and national debt?
Your watching the death of capitalism as you know it, for you it will be like a horror movie.
The world is finally wisening up on the USA and UK's financial engineering scams.
Game over!

 

[gingermeggs]

This isn't about trickle down economics. Its about fairness. Why should someone who works hard and play by the rules pay taxes to support the pensions of union workers?

The ones making the big bucks are shifting money about, you call it work!
is that a fair thing to call it?

 

[Red Dawn]

We throw money at their feet like they are. We don't want them to get skilled or be able to fend for themselves, we just want to give them stuff so they don't have to.

Give us an example of what you are talking about. Surely you don't mean Social Security or Medicare, by far the two biggest entitlement programs.

 

[cwjerome]

I think of it from a Lockean perspective, that a person has a right to estate, or property, to survive, protect your life, and make it a life worth living. Don't be confused with a "life worth living" from a modern perspective as it doesn't accurately relate to dollars. Locke believes the reason we have a natural right (ie it's a requirement of man's nature to have it) to property is essentially to advance Man, or society, and the reason government protects that right to property is to protect humanity.

We often twist this idea into a very individualistic, winner-takes-all theme. But Locke clearly says people can use what they have and take what they need/want (legally) as long as you leave as much and as good as you've taken. You have as much as you can be productive with. Much of the settlement (and taking of Indian lands) was based on this idea, with people saying the land is going to waste, and God certainly doesn't like waste. If you cannot make it productive you have to give it back.

People do not understand the higher law purposes for property. It's not about having the largest number of marbles at the end of the game, and that predatory, clever people get to take all the marbles. Locke talked about the difference between wealth and riches. He talked about how property serves the larger body and how abuse of property gets it taken away. Locke used the term commonwealth. COMMONwealth. Adam Smith talked about the Wealth of Nations, not the wealth of individuals.

Before anyone tries to dismiss me they should know that I'm a smaller government, lower taxes conservative, but classical meaning of property has been distorted.

 

[Craig234]

How many social programs were there during that time? How many people had an entitlement attitude that made them feel like they shouldn't have to work for an entire lifetime? During that time period (1945) people were shunned for being lazy or not producing, now they are revered.

Kappo, there are good things about you I infer from your posts, but no offense intended, you are one of the 'crazies' Eisenhower wrote about, an ignorant ideologue.

First, the economy has changed in a lot of ways. More in a minute.

Second, before the 'program' of Social Security, we had 90% elder poverty. It was a nightmare for the elderly. Before we had 'programs' increasing labor rights, the average wage in the US was $10,000, adjusted for inflation - widespread poverty. Before we had the 'program' of Medicare, many Americans went without medical care - which was pretty primitive at the time anyway. Before we had the 'program' of widespread college, a small fraction of the society's wealthiest were most of those who get to college.

And you ask about programs in the 1940 - a huge amount of America's men went into the military that decade - and had the helping hand of 'socialist' 'programs' to help them when they got out, the GI Bill, housing assistance, education assistance, medical assistance, and more. Big surprise, all these 'programs' had the middle class grow much stronger, and the economy do the same.

(Don't try to argue about 'deserving' it - this isn't a morality but an economics discussion. Hitler didn't add to our economy, he made us use resources that produced no wealth, just weapons that blew up or were scrapped, only preventing the harm of the enemy winning, not helping our own economy. So if 'programs' for the masses helped then, they'd help outside war too, even more.)

Another thing, after the war the US was in a very strong position without the destruction much of the rest of the world had - we could make things, people bought them.

We're in a far different situation with different factors today.

Now we're competing far more with the poor masses of the world - which gives us cheap imported goods, but less and less money to buy them with, as wages are flat but debt has skyrocketed (private debt much more even than public). The US in in big decline - but the rich, who have the wealth of the rest of the US decline, can get more and more, as the 'cheap labor free trade' policies have made their incomes skyrocket and they can buy more of the wealth of society, getting an ever bigger share of the pie.

You don't care about any of the results in the economy of the masses doing worse. You'll throw out a few weak claims of how good they are doing to try to refute the statistics, but you just don't care, because you're an ideologue. You just want 'less programs', and other things for your ideology. If that means a poorer and poorer bottom 80%, bottom 99%, you have plenty of rationalizations why that's ok.

You are selective to only count certain things in your arguments - making them biased, because you are uninformed. You show you don't get the economics, talking about 'reverance' for non-workers. You are uninformed about the broad harm to the structure of the economy without these programs making it harder for the economy to get productive later, reducing opportunity. You have the 'crazy ignorant' inflation of the poor as an issue, not understanding the real issues in the economy fixated on any 'programs for the poor'.

Social Security, Medicare, education all had their ranting opponents like you. They all helped our society, the people in our society.

You say you will 'never see' any return for your SS payments - just the sort of ignorant opinion that misinforms you to oppose SS, instead of make it work.

You really don't get the issues at all, you are just acting as a pawn in the agenda for the ultra rich, unwittingly, to betray your fellow citizens for the rich's interests.

We do need big changes - but they aren't the ones you think in many ways. We need a much more balanced budget, after the current crisis is handled; we also need the ultra wealthy who have massively increased their share of the pie to take a big hit, just as they did after the Great Depression that resulted after they had amasses such fortunes (the concentration of wealth at the top peaked just before the Great Depression, and didn't return until a few years ago when those policies were reversed).

 

[Craig234]

the greedy liberals want more of your earned income. YOU earn it but they want it. Because your an achiever, you need to be punished.

You got your crayon on my screen. What a classic example of the right-wing parrot repeating the simplistic, dishonest propaganda you are fed and swallow.

 

[Kappo]

I am not taking away nothing, just running from yomassa!
What has your system invented lately except increasing poverty and national debt?
Your watching the death of capitalism as you know it, for you it will be like a horror movie.
The world is finally wisening up on the USA and UK's financial engineering scams.
Game over!

Funny you should mention that since most of the EU is moving away from socialization and more toward capitalism and privatization. They are beginning to see the err of their ways and it is self-correcting. Capitalism is the strongest form of economy that gives everyone a chance to be as successful as they wish. Sure, it's not perfect, but it is far better than any alternative out there now.

Very few people in the US can't get the basics of what they need (how is it possible to "live in poverty" while still having cable and tons of toys for their kids?), perhaps they are just being greedy and wanting more than they are putting into the system? I went from making $75k a year to working at a pet store for ~$12/hr so I didn't have to go on unemployment or welfare. If I can manage through hard times, why can't someone else? Because they want to be "free" and do "whatever they want". Things don't work like that. If no one sacrifices and no one works, we all live in huts hunting for food. Not exactly a "progressive" society.

Working for Habitat for Humanity, I see a few people who just really can't catch a break (hell, some of them aren't even the people who are getting a house.. some are people that I work with!). Many people have made very poor choices for their entire lives. ALL of them have the opportunity to do something better and improve their situation, but only a handful actually realize that those opportunities are up to them. I've never seen a situation where someone could not improve.

 

[jackace]

Fair share is usually referred to as equally burden. To equally burden people who have unequal incomes and wealth requires that we look at Marginal Utility. This is why our tax structure has always been progressive in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

 

[Phokus]

Fair share means that the rich who got rich by finding ingenious ways to outsource all our jobs and destroy our economy should pay a larger percentage of their income than the rest of us do.

 

[nyker96]

I think OP refers to been fair as in if you use the service, pay for it. I believe that's one definition of fairness, although fairness is intrinsically not fixed. Whatever you think is fair is fair. But one caution though, what if 5% of the population has the ability to make 99.99% of the money in the country using the existence of laws of commerce etc.

Let's say you abolish the tax system and do a pay per ride deal on everything from school to access to transportation or food/drugs/hospitals/recreational facility. Then the disparity of the rich vs poor would be incredible. The 95% will be extremely poor to the degree that they will have trouble paying for education/food/medicine/doctors etc. Do you think this model can be sustained as a societal model?

Case in point, China, in the 1920s-1949 or so the US supported Republican government employed just that type of fair taxation system. Back then the poor farmers (80% of population) were so poor and powerless (since they got no cash to influence the political process) they were starving to death in a rate that's like 1/10, almost every farmer has a relative who died of starvation or disease because they cannot afford a doctor. They were like 80% of the population at the time. So the spark of revolution started, they had nothing to loose. The communists started to gain more and more support because they had a simple slogan: live your current life and die or pickup a gun and fight for a chance to topple the government and start a better life. So these farmers did just that, faced with tanks and machines guns and airplanes (mostly US supplied) they poured on with rocks and home made rifles. They had no where to go in life but this gave them some hope. So it's 5-10% elite vs rest of the country. Well, history shows who the winner was in that scenario. No matter what amount of weaponry you have no one can sustain a government that had lost popular support i.e. majority of the population.

I think that 5-10% of the population is incredibly smart and intelligent and well connected and capable to warrant 99.99% of all a countries wealth, but question is if you gave them 99.99% of the wealth and power in the country will you be able to form a stable society? A sustainable government? Yes they maybe smarter and more capable than the rest of 90% of the population but will they be able to prevent the 90% from coming and toppling the government they formed? Well, history shows they will not be able to.

And look around do you wonder why if this "fair" taxation system is so fair why haven't any current government employed it? Well, the answer is quite simple, there were such system of government but they did not survive practical use. This is also why such type of government system like the parliament etc is widely used, they proven to work.

 

[Anarchist420]

Fair share means high taxes for everyone to Obama.

Rand Paul just reported that Geithner said that Obama plans to push through huge tax hikes.

 

[Anarchist420]

The fairest possible tax is one that's so low that it doesn't have hardly any impact on the market.

It's not about whether it's progressive or equally applied, it's really about the amount, as rothbard once pointed out.

I mean, if we went to free-banking, a $100B federal budget, and uniform 10% ad valorem tariff, then that would be fair for everyone. That way, no wealth is redistributed, and that way no one pays too much in taxes. And there would be no excuse for being poor or letting the disabled or elderly be poor.

 

[Kappo]

Give us an example of what you are talking about. Surely you don't mean Social Security or Medicare, by far the two biggest entitlement programs.

You have to actively pursue starving to death here. Food stamps, WIC, welfare, unemployment that lasts 2.5 years, housing, free cell phones, billpay grant systems. You know, the OTHER 50% of the social costs (I think SS and Medicare are 50% ish?). SS is not an entitlement, you pay into it. It's mismanaged, but still a "put in put out" system. Medicare is payed by SS, so same kind of thing (although still mismanaged). These are just the government programs. There are all kinds of charities and citizen-based help out there as well.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Hmmmm isn't during that the time America prospered the most?

Indeed it is, which is one of the ways you can tell that trickledown economics is a scam.

Very few social programs.

Also, the US was coming off of a high manufacturing output due to WWII and the military has not been released.