Turns out it IS all the fault of the rich. Proof inside!

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
ElFenix-

This has gone far enough.
Yes it is dishonest to dump them all into one WITHOUT acknowledging that income may have nothing to do with some the taxes. GOT IT YET!!!? <- I'm through with your nonsense about that.
All the data I linked to and used was put in it's proper perspective I was very carefull to use proper wording so people wouldn't ASSume what you have ASSumed...IF they fully read my post.
I linked to SOME data - YOU have not. I have asked for more data - NOBODY(except jahawkin's graph) provided any but yet YOU contine to whine about some magical overall picture that nobody can verify. Get me some data and we'll look at it, to see how much of their "fair share" the rich really are paying.
That graph isn't very good data without having more details - very little data can be culled from it, since it was culled from the raw data (I hope).
Hehe - yeah, do it myself... well I'm not the one clinging to some claim of an "overall" picture with nothing(besides 1 little graph) to back it up.
This data IS important because it shows WHY AND HOW WE HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAXES So yes - breaking it down is VERY important in trying to decipher the data to paint the "big picture".

I don't know why you are trying to fight me on this. The FEDERAL gov'ts income from? Yeah...that's right...INCOME TAXES. Wow - that would have taken 2 seconds of a google search for you. So, the question then becomes - Is the revenue recieved by the FEDS "fair"? If not? why?Fix?
Next, where does the state revenue come from?
Then Local too.
You see Mr. Forrestforthetrees, I should think that the state(sales tax*) and probably the local gov't(property tax and local sales) are the recipients of the "regressive" type tax incomes. Have you asked yourself why?
*note - yes I know some states gets income tax

I understand you qualm about my use of "you" and "leftist" - alot of times it is meant to be a generic "if the shoe fits" type thing. If you can't/won't provide any data, please refrain from using any blanket "overall" statement until you can back up your claims. See - THAT is exactly my point with all this. The Democrats keep whining about the rich not paying their "fair share" and how we should tax them more, but present ZERO data to back up their assertion. Likewise people here have done the same thing. You taking issue with me only provideing INCOME TAX data helped to prove that. You keep claiming that an overall picture is the only way, and I'm saying it isn't, because the data doesn't come bundled like that since it doesn't matter what a person's income is when paying sales tax. Yes, you could probably estimate it and get pretty close, but without presenting the data in that light - it IS dishonest.

Care to continue with your nonsense?

CkG

no one has said that the taxes are income based. no one has said that the data provided is anything but an estimate. so your insistance on posting about something no one is doing is the nonsense. in fact, i really don't give a rat's ass what the actual data is, i'm aruging that the big picture is the one to be looked at because it describes the total burden. you don't need to have actual data in hand to try to figure out which data to work with and which is the most honest to look at. it would be grossly inefficient to collect data and then decide which data is needed. either that or you're massaging data with an eye toward a canned conclusion. wanting to use the best data for describing if the overall tax burden is fair requires looking at the overall picture, not just one, albeit the largest, part. you can't do it any other way. and determining if just one part is fair is impossible without looking at what it does to the aggregate. recognizing that hardly makes me a leftist.

and can you keep the personal attacks out of your posts just once? no one is whining.

See, what you are missing is that I'm looking for the other data...you know...to see if the leftists are correct about the rich not paying their "fair share" You keep spouting off about "the big picture" but fail to see that I expect it to be in context. There is no context without data. Got it?
Nobody (including me) was saying that Income tax was the only thing to look at. I don't understand why you keep implying that I am. But alas, as you said - it is the largest part of the Federal income from people...and that is what the Federal govt's leftists want to mess with(LIEberman and the gang).

Buck up kiddo - it's a rough and tumble world out here. I'm not picking on you, or even calling you a leftist. The argument that I have is with the leftists that say the rich need to be taxed MORE(increased) because they for some reason aren't paying their "fair share". You just happened to stumble in and catch the brunt of it because you were trying to reposition my argument for me - which I promptly took issue with because of the misrepresentation of my statements and position.

Anyone got some info so we can attempt to paint a legitimate picture?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Here is a much different, and IMO much more responsible, way of looking at this:

Framing the Dems - How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back

[ ... ]

Taxes look very different when framed from a progressive point of view. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, taxes are the price of civilization. They are what you pay to live in America -- your dues -- to have democracy, opportunity and access to all the infrastructure that previous taxpayers have built up and made available to you: highways, the Internet, weather reports, parks, the stock market, scientific research, Social Security, rural electrification, communications satellites, and on and on. If you belong to America, you pay a membership fee and you get all that infrastructure plus government services: flood control, air-traffic control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and so on.

Interestingly, the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the American infrastructure. The Securities and Exchange Commission creates honest stock markets. Most of the judicial system is used for corporate law. Drugs developed with National Institutes of Health funding can be patented for private profit. Chemical companies hire scientists trained under National Science Foundation grants. Airlines hire pilots trained by the Air Force. The beef industry grazes its cattle cheaply on public lands. The more wealth you accumulate using what the dues payers have provided, the greater the debt you owe to those who have made your wealth possible. That is the logic of progressive taxation.

No entrepreneur makes it on his own in America. The American infrastructure makes entrepreneurship possible, and others have put it in place. If you've made a bundle, you owe a bundle. The least painful way to repay your debt to the nation is posthumously, through the inheritance tax.

Those who don't pay their dues are turning their backs on our country. American corporations registering abroad to avoid taxes are deserting our nation when their estimated $70 billion in dues and service payments are badly needed, for schools and for rescuing our state and local governments.

[ ... ]

The whole article is in this thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here is a much different, and IMO much more responsible, way of looking at this:

Framing the Dems - How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back

[ ... ]

Taxes look very different when framed from a progressive point of view. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, taxes are the price of civilization. They are what you pay to live in America -- your dues -- to have democracy, opportunity and access to all the infrastructure that previous taxpayers have built up and made available to you: highways, the Internet, weather reports, parks, the stock market, scientific research, Social Security, rural electrification, communications satellites, and on and on. If you belong to America, you pay a membership fee and you get all that infrastructure plus government services: flood control, air-traffic control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and so on.

Interestingly, the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the American infrastructure. The Securities and Exchange Commission creates honest stock markets. Most of the judicial system is used for corporate law. Drugs developed with National Institutes of Health funding can be patented for private profit. Chemical companies hire scientists trained under National Science Foundation grants. Airlines hire pilots trained by the Air Force. The beef industry grazes its cattle cheaply on public lands. The more wealth you accumulate using what the dues payers have provided, the greater the debt you owe to those who have made your wealth possible. That is the logic of progressive taxation.

No entrepreneur makes it on his own in America. The American infrastructure makes entrepreneurship possible, and others have put it in place. If you've made a bundle, you owe a bundle. The least painful way to repay your debt to the nation is posthumously, through the inheritance tax.

Those who don't pay their dues are turning their backs on our country. American corporations registering abroad to avoid taxes are deserting our nation when their estimated $70 billion in dues and service payments are badly needed, for schools and for rescuing our state and local governments.

[ ... ]

The whole article is in this thread.

Please forward that to LIEberman and his gang They seem to be on this tax the rich kick...."because they need to pay their fair share"

Eh - maybe not. I'm not sure that is what some of them are going for. Seems like they are going for the disgruntled anti-rich/business angle - not the fluffy "membership fee" facade that the writer suggests.

CkG

 

[Tom]

Good article, Bowfinger, the part you quoted sounds a lot like what I said in some posts a few months ago about why the rich benefit more from an organized well run society, because they have more to lose and/or gain.

Also I was thinking last night, the richest gur in the world pays exactly the same taxes on the first part of his income, 0%, and so on up through the brackets. So the rich don't pay more in taxes on the part of their income that is in the same brackets as peple with less income, so they don't pay more than anybody else, as far as fairness is concerned. The only part they pay a larger percentage on is the part where they make more than people who don't mkae enough to get in that bracket.

So I don't think there's anything unfair about having different brackets at higher income. The real issue is not making it too high that it's a disencentive while bringing in enough to cover what we want to spend, which IMHO the rates before Bush's tax cut were fine.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Good article, Bowfinger, the part you quoted sounds a lot like what I said in some posts a few months ago about why the rich benefit more from an organized well run society, because they have more to lose and/or gain.

Also I was thinking last night, the richest gur in the world pays exactly the same taxes on the first part of his income, 0%, and so on up through the brackets. So the rich don't pay more in taxes on the part of their income that is in the same brackets as peple with less income, so they don't pay more than anybody else, as far as fairness is concerned. The only part they pay a larger percentage on is the part where they make more than people who don't mkae enough to get in that bracket.

So I don't think there's anything unfair about having different brackets at higher income. The real issue is not making it too high that it's a disencentive while bringing in enough to cover what we want to spend, which IMHO the rates before Bush's tax cut were fine.

Were they "fine" for the middle brackets and the "poor" bracket(s)? It seems to me that if you want to have a tax break to stir the economy in a broad sense than everyone should recieve a tax break - yes, even the rich, since they spend their money in different ways. Investing the $ helps to bolster other business which pays workers and the like.

I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]

I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG

In a thread overflowing with Republican campaign BS, this claim stands out as particularly absurd. "Fair share" is a subjective concept. What possible "proof" could anyone offer that would satisfy you? What is the metric we can use to prove fairness? In a different thread, you keep harping about "opinions" when we are trying to discuss matters of fact. Here, you keep demanding that matters of opinion be proven as if they were objective facts.

In my opinion, the wealthy derive the most benefit from the infrastruture and opportunites in this country. It is therefore only fair that they should pay a proportionally higher share of the costs of providing this infrastructure and supporting those opportunities. If your opinion differs, explain why. Stop making ridiculous demands that people "prove" the rich should pay more.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]

I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG

In a thread overflowing with Republican campaign BS, this claim stands out as particularly absurd. "Fair share" is a subjective concept. What possible "proof" could anyone offer that would satisfy you? What is the metric we can use to prove fairness? In a different thread, you keep harping about "opinions" when we are trying to discuss matters of fact. Here, you keep demanding that matters of opinion be proven as if they were objective facts.

In my opinion, the wealthy derive the most benefit from the infrastruture and opportunites in this country. It is therefore only fair that they should pay a proportionally higher share of the costs of providing this infrastructure and supporting those opportunities. If your opinion differs, explain why. Stop making ridiculous demands that people "prove" the rich should pay more.

Well, until the left can back up their opinions that the rich don't pay their fair share - they don't have an argument for only increasing the taxes on the "rich".

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]

I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG

In a thread overflowing with Republican campaign BS, this claim stands out as particularly absurd. "Fair share" is a subjective concept. What possible "proof" could anyone offer that would satisfy you? What is the metric we can use to prove fairness? In a different thread, you keep harping about "opinions" when we are trying to discuss matters of fact. Here, you keep demanding that matters of opinion be proven as if they were objective facts.

In my opinion, the wealthy derive the most benefit from the infrastruture and opportunites in this country. It is therefore only fair that they should pay a proportionally higher share of the costs of providing this infrastructure and supporting those opportunities. If your opinion differs, explain why. Stop making ridiculous demands that people "prove" the rich should pay more.

Well, until the left can back up their opinions that the rich don't pay their fair share - they don't have an argument for only increasing the taxes on the "rich".

CkG

Sure they do, just as much as you have arguments for not increasing them. Unlike the other thread, this truly is a matter of opinion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]

I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG

In a thread overflowing with Republican campaign BS, this claim stands out as particularly absurd. "Fair share" is a subjective concept. What possible "proof" could anyone offer that would satisfy you? What is the metric we can use to prove fairness? In a different thread, you keep harping about "opinions" when we are trying to discuss matters of fact. Here, you keep demanding that matters of opinion be proven as if they were objective facts.

In my opinion, the wealthy derive the most benefit from the infrastruture and opportunites in this country. It is therefore only fair that they should pay a proportionally higher share of the costs of providing this infrastructure and supporting those opportunities. If your opinion differs, explain why. Stop making ridiculous demands that people "prove" the rich should pay more.

Well, until the left can back up their opinions that the rich don't pay their fair share - they don't have an argument for only increasing the taxes on the "rich".

CkG

Sure they do, just as much as you have arguments for not increasing them. Unlike the other thread, this truly is a matter of opinion.

They are going to INCREASE taxes on only one group because it's their opinion that they don't pay their fair share?
So what is this opinion based on? emotion? or is it based on "facts"? if it is based on facts, then please present the facts. They are the ones stating "opinions" without reasons, I'm asking for proof of reason.

Now if I was campaigning on a platform of not raising taxes for X group because I think Y. Don't you think that people might question my reasoning for that position? (yes) And if I were running on that platform you bet I'd have some facts to back up my reasoning to the questioners. But you see, I'm not running or campaigning - they are, they are making these opined claims. Time for them to back them up. I'm challenging them.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

See, what you are missing is that I'm looking for the other data...you know...to see if the leftists are correct about the rich not paying their "fair share" You keep spouting off about "the big picture" but fail to see that I expect it to be in context. There is no context without data. Got it?
Nobody (including me) was saying that Income tax was the only thing to look at. I don't understand why you keep implying that I am. But alas, as you said - it is the largest part of the Federal income from people...and that is what the Federal govt's leftists want to mess with(LIEberman and the gang).

Buck up kiddo - it's a rough and tumble world out here. I'm not picking on you, or even calling you a leftist. The argument that I have is with the leftists that say the rich need to be taxed MORE(increased) because they for some reason aren't paying their "fair share". You just happened to stumble in and catch the brunt of it because you were trying to reposition my argument for me - which I promptly took issue with because of the misrepresentation of my statements and position.

Anyone got some info so we can attempt to paint a legitimate picture?

CkG

now you're being patronizing. yes, you did call me a leftist. i really shouldn't even bother to reply due to your inability to refrain from ad hominems. i know you're looking for the other data. i don't care that you're looking for the other data. if the lefties want to say the rich aren't paying their fair share let them bring conclusive data. the context you expect it to be in is the one that discredits it the most, by saying that you can't break down non-income based taxes into income groups. that is ridiculous. if you want to see what effect the income tax will have on the overall result you have to break the aggregate into income groups. i haven't said that you only wanted to look at income tax. what you have said is that you want to look at each tax piecemeal to see if it is fair in and of itself. to do so is inefficient. and subject to nothing but opinion. you only need to see if the portion you are interested in is fair with regards to its effect on the aggregate.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain
The poor have less discretionary income so they pay less sales tax.

No one is advocating that everyone pay the same amount of money in taxes. Stop floundering, it's not attractive.

But the poor pay a greater portion of their income as sales tax since most of their income goes to the purchase of goods and services. Sales tax is a regressive tax. As a percentage of overall income, the poor pay more, i.e., their effective rate is higher.

Show me a state where the sales tax is more than 10%. Most states don't tax food or other essentials. Poorer people will tend to spend a higher portion of their income on food than richer people.

Clothes,over the counter medicine, parts for your car, the poor will always pay a much higher percentage out than the rich. Gas tax is another example. Auto registration too.
It is a regressive tax, when compared to a state income tax. The quandry is when a state's spending gets so out of whack that those other taxes keep rising, defeating the purpose of the state income tax.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

See, what you are missing is that I'm looking for the other data...you know...to see if the leftists are correct about the rich not paying their "fair share" You keep spouting off about "the big picture" but fail to see that I expect it to be in context. There is no context without data. Got it?
Nobody (including me) was saying that Income tax was the only thing to look at. I don't understand why you keep implying that I am. But alas, as you said - it is the largest part of the Federal income from people...and that is what the Federal govt's leftists want to mess with(LIEberman and the gang).

Buck up kiddo - it's a rough and tumble world out here. I'm not picking on you, or even calling you a leftist. The argument that I have is with the leftists that say the rich need to be taxed MORE(increased) because they for some reason aren't paying their "fair share". You just happened to stumble in and catch the brunt of it because you were trying to reposition my argument for me - which I promptly took issue with because of the misrepresentation of my statements and position.

Anyone got some info so we can attempt to paint a legitimate picture?

CkG

now you're being patronizing. yes, you did call me a leftist. i really shouldn't even bother to reply due to your inability to refrain from ad hominems. i know you're looking for the other data. i don't care that you're looking for the other data. if the lefties want to say the rich aren't paying their fair share let them bring conclusive data. the context you expect it to be in is the one that discredits it the most, by saying that you can't break down non-income based taxes into income groups. that is ridiculous. if you want to see what effect the income tax will have on the overall result you have to break the aggregate into income groups. i haven't said that you only wanted to look at income tax. what you have said is that you want to look at each tax piecemeal to see if it is fair in and of itself. to do so is inefficient. and subject to nothing but opinion. you only need to see if the portion you are interested in is fair with regards to its effect on the aggregate.

No, you just don't seem to want to see or admit my point. I've explained it multiple times already but you for some reason won't get past the "overall" picture. Looking at individual taxes is what? Are you serious? To NOT look at them and understand how they work and what/where it goes would be ridiculous. Again I don't think you understand that we are almost in agreement on some of this - but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that the context(specific and overall) of the taxes is important.

PS - where did I specifically call you a leftist?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

See, what you are missing is that I'm looking for the other data...you know...to see if the leftists are correct about the rich not paying their "fair share" You keep spouting off about "the big picture" but fail to see that I expect it to be in context. There is no context without data. Got it?
Nobody (including me) was saying that Income tax was the only thing to look at. I don't understand why you keep implying that I am. But alas, as you said - it is the largest part of the Federal income from people...and that is what the Federal govt's leftists want to mess with(LIEberman and the gang).

Buck up kiddo - it's a rough and tumble world out here. I'm not picking on you, or even calling you a leftist. The argument that I have is with the leftists that say the rich need to be taxed MORE(increased) because they for some reason aren't paying their "fair share". You just happened to stumble in and catch the brunt of it because you were trying to reposition my argument for me - which I promptly took issue with because of the misrepresentation of my statements and position.

Anyone got some info so we can attempt to paint a legitimate picture?

CkG

now you're being patronizing. yes, you did call me a leftist. i really shouldn't even bother to reply due to your inability to refrain from ad hominems. i know you're looking for the other data. i don't care that you're looking for the other data. if the lefties want to say the rich aren't paying their fair share let them bring conclusive data. the context you expect it to be in is the one that discredits it the most, by saying that you can't break down non-income based taxes into income groups. that is ridiculous. if you want to see what effect the income tax will have on the overall result you have to break the aggregate into income groups. i haven't said that you only wanted to look at income tax. what you have said is that you want to look at each tax piecemeal to see if it is fair in and of itself. to do so is inefficient. and subject to nothing but opinion. you only need to see if the portion you are interested in is fair with regards to its effect on the aggregate.

No, you just don't seem to want to see or admit my point. I've explained it multiple times already but you for some reason won't get past the "overall" picture. Looking at individual taxes is what? Are you serious? To NOT look at them and understand how they work and what/where it goes would be ridiculous. Again I don't think you understand that we are almost in agreement on some of this - but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that the context(specific and overall) of the taxes is important.

PS - where did I specifically call you a leftist?

CkG

Cad, have you ever wondered why so many different people so consistently have trouble seeing your "point"? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with your superior reasoning abilities.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Cad, have you ever wondered why so many different people so consistently have trouble seeing your "point"? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with your superior reasoning abilities.

Yes - I have wondered...but then I look at their other posts and realize that many times they just refuse to acknowledge my points. It's not that they don't understand them neccessarily - they just won't or don't. You of all people should know this

But yes it does get tiresome when people spout off about taxes when they haven't looked at the data or even attempted to understand our system. I've spent a great deal of time looking at our personal tax structure and how it is gathered and distributed. I'm by no means an expert but I am pretty well informed and quickly tire of people spouting off when they can't back up their assertions. In this case - my beef is with the Democrats(leftists) who keep spouting that the rich don't pay thier "fair share" and that we should increase only their taxes. What I am doing is questioning their reasoning to see exactly how they think the rich don't pay enough. Emotion has(well logically shouldn't) nothing to do with taxes - reasoned fact does though and that's what my goal is - to see what those facts are and to try and understand their reasoning.

Meh - I'm sure you will dismiss this post too, but it doesn't matter - no one has been able to substantiate the claims of the leftists yet and I'll keep waiting for it.
Carry on.

CkG

 

[Tom]

"I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG "


Nobody's advocating raising taxes on only the rich. I think poor people with incomes over $200,000 should pay the same rate as rich people.

Just like rich people pay the same rate as poor people on the first $10,000 of their income.

There's nothing unfair about it. You only think there might be because you've been listening to Republican rhetoric too long.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I don't think it is "unfair" to have different brackets per se, I just think it is "unfair" for people to say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" and want to only raise their(rich) taxes when there is no proof that they don't pay their fair share.

CkG "


Nobody's advocating raising taxes on only the rich. I think poor people with incomes over $200,000 should pay the same rate as rich people.

Just like rich people pay the same rate as poor people on the first $10,000 of their income.

There's nothing unfair about it. You only think there might be because you've been listening to Republican rhetoric too long.

Lieberman was talking about doing just that the other day and the other ones have taken similar positions. And again, I didn't say our current system is "unfair" I'm just questioning why increasing taxes only on the "rich" is because they don't pay thier "fair share".

Lieberman Proposes Tax Hikes on Wealthy
Why, Mr. Lieberman, do you say that the the"rich" don't pay their "fair share".

I led the fight to pass the Clinton-Gore economic plan to slash the deficit, invest in education, cut taxes for working families and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Why, Mr. Gephardt, do you say that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share".

Do I need to find more?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Cad, have you ever wondered why so many different people so consistently have trouble seeing your "point"? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with your superior reasoning abilities.

Yes - I have wondered...but then I look at their other posts and realize that many times they just refuse to acknowledge my points. It's not that they don't understand them neccessarily - they just won't or don't. You of all people should know this

But yes it does get tiresome when people spout off about taxes when they haven't looked at the data or even attempted to understand our system. I've spent a great deal of time looking at our personal tax structure and how it is gathered and distributed. I'm by no means an expert but I am pretty well informed and quickly tire of people spouting off when they can't back up their assertions. In this case - my beef is with the Democrats(leftists) who keep spouting that the rich don't pay thier "fair share" and that we should increase only their taxes. What I am doing is questioning their reasoning to see exactly how they think the rich don't pay enough. Emotion has(well logically shouldn't) nothing to do with taxes - reasoned fact does though and that's what my goal is - to see what those facts are and to try and understand their reasoning.

Meh - I'm sure you will dismiss this post too, but it doesn't matter - no one has been able to substantiate the claims of the leftists yet and I'll keep waiting for it.
Carry on.

CkG

"'Fair share' is a subjective concept. What possible 'proof' could anyone offer that would satisfy you? What is the metric we can use to prove fairness? In a different thread, you keep harping about "opinions" when we are trying to discuss matters of fact. Here, you keep demanding that matters of opinion be proven as if they were objective facts."

"Fairness" == "opinion". There is no factual basis for proving "fairness". It is a value judgment. There is nothing to substantiate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Cad, have you ever wondered why so many different people so consistently have trouble seeing your "point"? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with your superior reasoning abilities.

Yes - I have wondered...but then I look at their other posts and realize that many times they just refuse to acknowledge my points. It's not that they don't understand them neccessarily - they just won't or don't. You of all people should know this

But yes it does get tiresome when people spout off about taxes when they haven't looked at the data or even attempted to understand our system. I've spent a great deal of time looking at our personal tax structure and how it is gathered and distributed. I'm by no means an expert but I am pretty well informed and quickly tire of people spouting off when they can't back up their assertions. In this case - my beef is with the Democrats(leftists) who keep spouting that the rich don't pay thier "fair share" and that we should increase only their taxes. What I am doing is questioning their reasoning to see exactly how they think the rich don't pay enough. Emotion has(well logically shouldn't) nothing to do with taxes - reasoned fact does though and that's what my goal is - to see what those facts are and to try and understand their reasoning.

Meh - I'm sure you will dismiss this post too, but it doesn't matter - no one has been able to substantiate the claims of the leftists yet and I'll keep waiting for it.
Carry on.

CkG

"'Fair share' is a subjective concept. What possible "proof" could anyone offer that would satisfy you? What is the metric we can use to prove fairness? In a different thread, you keep harping about "opinions" when we are trying to discuss matters of fact. Here, you keep demanding that matters of opinion be proven as if they were objective facts."

"Fairness" == "opinion". There is no factual basis for proving "fairness". It is a value judgment. There is nothing to substantiate.

The "proof" would be some facts to back up your opinion- in this case it'd be tax information since that is the topic the opinion is about.
Nobody here, nor the candidates, have provided "proof" to back up their opinion.
My posts in that other thread weren't about the actual "proof" - it was about the opinion derived from "proof" - as in that I could write an op/ed piece with proof and come the the conclusion that something else was "absurd". That other thread went AWOL when people kept questioning my post and trying to twist my statements to mean different things.

Now again, where is any sort of "proof" to back up the opinions about raising taxes because the rich don't pay their "fair share"?

CkG

Edit- I suppose that if people wanted to we could start a whole new thread on taxes. Get indepth with structures, rates and the like. I truely am curious as to the data I keep asking for. There seems to be very little that is easily available since it hasn't been posted yet. I've spend a tad bit of time looking around for some and have a little but not near enought to come to a conclusive opinion on the overall picture.

 

[Tom]

"fair share" isn't a point on a line, it's a range, the Democrats you quote are saying the rich were paying their fair share before the Bush tax cuts, given the deficit picture; and so giving up part or all of that tax cut would still be in the range of what's fair.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"fair share" isn't a point on a line, it's a range, the Democrats you quote are saying the rich were paying their fair share before the Bush tax cuts, given the deficit picture; and so giving up part or all of that tax cut would still be in the range of what's fair.

Lieberman's plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans more than any of his Democratic rivals, according to Dan Gerstein, a top aide

- more than his rivals who want to get rid of ALL of Bush's tax cuts?

"Let me refresh President Bush's memory. In 1993, I led the fight to pass the Clinton-Gore economic plan to slash the deficit, invest in education, cut taxes for working families and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share."

-Gephardt. GWB had taxcuts in 1993?

When will it it become "fair share"? Will the Democrats who use this accusation ever stop? Will it stop if they repeal Bush's cuts? Gephardt seems to think that it wasn't fair even before Bush's cuts. How much is "fair share"?

Or is it just a class warfare tactic

I have a hunch....

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Just for the record.... I don't have an issue with increasing the income tax rate on the ultra rich per se...my angle is when will it stop? That's what I've been trying to lead to but people keep getting caught up in these other issues which have been leading to my point. I've had to fight those battles because they only helped solidify my point. Basing the opinion of "fair share" on anything but facts and data will only lead to more and more taxation of the rich - because they are an easy target. This "war" that is being waged on the rich is starting to backfire and I don't blame any of the "rich" for taking their money and businesses elsewhere. Why stay here when you are always a target of politician when they want to fund some new entitlement program. Some day I will be one of "them" (rich)...but not if they don't stay here and invest here. We all need them here. Not only do they fund dasm near everything the gov't does, they pay your paycheck and keep innovation alive. I'm not going to pretend that they are all "good" or some sort of philanthropists but without the "rich" keeping their money in our markets we will keep losing ground in the world market. Now again, I'm not saying the "rich" need to pay less, I'm just saying that we need to define what fair share is and then stick to it, this constant assault on the rich borders on the absurd.

Our tax system needs to be changed...so it is transparent so there will be no more of this bickering about "how the rich get too...." or "the rich..." I wish a flat tax would work but it seems to have quite a few problems on a variety of fronts. I wouldn't be opposed to having an Income only tax and then allow the states to get a cut of income. Also I wouldn't be opposed to a luxury "usage" tax on certain things which wouldn't even remotely touch the truly poor. There are a few other ideas i've been tossing around in my melon but I haven't worked out enough kinks to even share them.

One thing I do know for sure though, is that our Federal Gov't spends WAY too much money and is involved in WAY too many everyday things and we need to change that. State and local gov't should have more say in how things are done whereas they are on pretty tight reigns of the Feds on alot of things. WE need to shift power back to the Local and State gov'ts. With this shift of power(like that'll happen

) though needs to come the shift of funds...which hasn't happened for a long time(if ever).

I'm sure i'll have to expand on some of these things as people pick them apart so...have at it

CkG

 

[Tom]

Nice rant, but the Democrats aren't out to get the rich, Bush started all this crap because of his retarded tax cut idea. There was no hue and cry to raise taxes on the rich. The problem is the Bush tax cuts screwed up a delicate balance and perhaps not you, but many Republicans attack any attempt to reverse the mistake as class warfare, when it's really just getting back to a sane pracitce that there should be a relationship between what the government spends versus what revenue it takes in.

I've been through all this same crap after the 80s and the last Bush president. The Democrats FINALLY corrected the mistake in 1992 which was one of the main reasons for the increased confidence in the government's ability to be rational which led to economic expansion.

And the worst aspects of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility haven't happened yet. It's possible they can be hidden long enough to get past the election, but there is no way we can run 300-500 billion deficits for very many years without tremendous cost in future growth.

And economics is largely about pysycology, if business or cinsumers or any other group thinks the way things are going isn't going to work, it will lead to further economic problems.

See, people thought Reagan's ideas might work, or at least hoped they would , so they gave it a shot. After a few years everybody realized it wasn't going to work long term, I mean the huge deficits, so Bush put a band-aid on it, but everybody knwe we were still bleeding. Then Clinton came along and said, looke we have to raise taxes a bit to get things back on track, and people could see he might be right so they gave it a try and low and behold we got out of an endless spiral of deficits back to a point where it looked like we might actually be able to reduce some of the debt, but along comes Bush jr with a not so subtle way to get elected, appeal to people's greed, with a cover story that if taxes weren't cut the surpuls would be used for more spending.

Of course the reality is the surplus wasn't that big, the tax cuts are much larger than he says they are, and he not only didn't cut spending, he dramatically raised it !!

And the business people and economisits know it, they just are blinded by greed, but pretty soon the same thing will happen that happened in 1990, after waiting too long something will have to be done about Bush's stupid tax cuts.

And we'll have several trillion more dollars of debt than we would have if people would try to control their greed and look down the road farther than next week.

 

[PainTrain]

"This "war" that is being waged on the rich is starting to backfire and I don't blame any of the "rich" for taking their money and businesses elsewhere"

Are you refering to the dastardley tactics involved with the pro-business/wealthy Bush tax cut's? I have trouble seeing how that could be construed as an act of "class warfare." What else has occured within the past year to precipitate the activity of corporate America? You repeatedly quote Lieberman and Ghepardt whose recent statements have put your panties in a bunch, and yet the corporate exedous that is now occuring began months before these statements were made. Still, you insist on portraying these statements as instrumental to the shifting of jobs overseas. In "reality" (to borrow your most prized term of internet machismo) jobs are going over seas because the labor available in places like India is as qualified as what one could find in America with the added beneift that they work for a fraction of the price. There are markets that are being realized and developed upon around the world that would benefit from the the location thse business are relocating to. I could go on, but in summary jobs have been moved overseas for purely funcitonal reasons and not because of your mytchical "class warfare." You call people like me Communist when in fact you seethe facist elitism because some talking head on Fox told you so. You celebrate the exedous as a matter of principle, ignoring the implications for our own people and the econmy they are subject to. Communist my a$$, you're as un-American as they come pal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PainTrain
"This "war" that is being waged on the rich is starting to backfire and I don't blame any of the "rich" for taking their money and businesses elsewhere"

Are you refering to the dastardley tactics involved with the pro-business/wealthy Bush tax cut's? I have trouble seeing how that could be construed as an act of "class warfare." What else has occured within the past year to precipitate the activity of corporate America? You repeatedly quote Lieberman and Ghepardt whose recent statements have put your panties in a bunch, and yet the corporate exedous that is now occuring began months before these statements were made. Still, you insist on portraying these statements as instrumental to the shifting of jobs overseas. In "reality" (to borrow your most prized term of internet machismo) jobs are going over seas because the labor available in places like India is as qualified as what one could find in America with the added beneift that they work for a fraction of the price. There are markets that are being realized and developed upon around the world that would benefit from the the location thse business are relocating to. I could go on, but in summary jobs have been moved overseas for purely funcitonal reasons and not because of your mytchical "class warfare." You call people like me Communist when in fact you seethe facist elitism because some talking head on Fox told you so. You celebrate the exedous as a matter of principle, ignoring the implications for our own people and the econmy they are subject to. Communist my a$$, you're as un-American as they come pal.

Wow - talk about left field
I don't think I need to make any further comments - your post already did the talking

CkG

 

[PainTrain]

"left field" because of the timing of my reply or my interpretation of your rhetoric? Either way the quote was yours and it's ignorance begged rebuttal.