Paying a "fair share"

Sounds like the 1% apologist view of "fair".

1. Why shouldn't those with unearned income pay their "fair share"?

2. Why do you only include income taxes, which make up much less than half of all federal taxes and an even smaller percentage of taxes overall, when you are measuring the amount of taxes paid?

3. How, in your view, is it "fair" that a single mother trying to raise a couple kids should pay a higher tax that cuts into funds needed for basic necessities so that a billionaire can pay lower taxes so he can buy a bigger megayacht?

 

No, it shows that the bottom 90% of Americans income went down.

American incomes overall went up.

Big difference.

 

If you think people should pay for the value they receive then the value they receive from living in America should be considered their total wealth. I think a tax on total wealth would be the only truly fair tax.

 

Sounds about right.

Write your Republican reps and tell them they need to raise taxes on the wealthy.

 

Yes, GDP has been increasing and yet incomes for the bottom 90% has not increased since 1975 . I seem to remember a statistic that said the top ten families in the United States now have as much money as the bottom 90%

 

yes, ok, so your saying under Bush 90% of Americas income went down, but overall it went up, I think you proving my point

 

What is your point?

 

I disagree completely (and have made a tax proposal that disagrees completely).

The basic assumption for a "fair tax" is that people have fundamental necessary expenditures that they must make and that this should not be taxed. No tax should take food off of the table because the person would starve without it. No tax should force the person out into the cold to die of exposure. There are basic fundamental necessary expenditures that the person must make and that income should not be taxed.

Above the amount necessary for basic expenditures all income should be taxed at the same rate. The person will not starve nor will they die from exposure to the weather or die from a lack of health care services, etc., if that income is not taxed but income above that amount is taxed.

This does not establish "winners and losers" because no one is taxed on their income necessary for basic expenditures. At the same time there are "no winners or losers" based upon the taxing of income above the costs of the basic and necessary expenditures if everyone is taxed at the same rate.

The only purpose for taxation is to fund the authorized expenditures of government. As long as the conditions I proposed above are met then the tax rate must be enough to fund the authorized expenditures. The "tax burden" is the same for everyone because everyone is taxed at the same rate once their income exceeds that which is necessary for their basic necessities. There is no advantage or disadvantage for anyone under the proposal I've made.

 

The US needs some countercyclical fiscal policies combined with a higher inflation benchmark. The bottom 90% send their money to Asia and the top 10% make money of Asia.

 

that's idiotic and is no difference than saying that the kid who makes top grades at a public high school ought to pay more than the kids who come to class stoned and don't do their homework and barely graduate

- - - Updated - - -

why should those who pay far more than they use pay even more?

 

Simple. Because people want what they have, and they are willing to use government force to take it.

 

"liberal" thought is mainly an exercise in justifying envy by pretending it is for the greater good

 

Because they are paying from a big old government-protected rent-seeking pot....and because we outnumber you 99 to one. Democracy is good like that.

 

We outnumber you, and we are prepared to use violence to take your property.

Well, at least now we know what we're dealing with.

 

no wonder you want to ban taxpayers having guns. The rabble don't tend to fare well against the more intelligent and better armed.

but the appeal to the lowest common denominator is common among the socialist left

- - - Updated - - -

sounds like our buddy Haymarket who said the rich should be forced to grovel at the feet of the masses in order to be allowed to keep some of their wealth.

 

Yup. The old "might makes right" crowd. They're so civilized.

 

yeah and of course they want the minority disarmed. but they count on government storm troopers to do their dirty work

 

We don't need to use violence at all. We don't acre about your property. We will take your money.

- - - Updated - - -

Your gun won't help you one bit if the government seizes your bank accounts. You will never see them coming until they are gone.

 

Yeah, that's the property I was talking about.

 

Isn't the answer is obvious?

Why not just tax the poorest 100% of their income because they "use" more than they make? Why isn't that "fair"? That way the billionaires can buy a bigger megayacht.

 

"Conservative" thought is mainly an exercise in justifying greed by pretending it if for the greater good.

- - - Updated - - -

"We have vastly more wealth you, and we are prepared to use our wealth to deprive you of your property."

Well, at least now we know what we're dealing with.

- - - Updated - - -

The old "greed is good" crowd. They're so civilized.

 

well what we can do is make the poor who don't work engage in public service rather than sitting around watching "The Price is RIght" and stuffing themselves with Food stamp purchased Twinkies.

most of the taxes paid by the poor is with money that comes from net tax payers

- - - Updated - - -

reactionary parasitic statists (i.e. much of the socialist-welfare left) claim that merely wanting to keep what you have made is greedy but demanding others be forced to pay for what you want (or pay for what others want so you can take credit for it) is not greedy.

subjecting failures to benign neglect is not nearly as greedy as wanting to forcibly take from someone else as you do

 

Except I'm not really the one who advocates depriving anyone of their property.

Nice try though.

 

I'm all for Govt jobs programs to get more people working. Write your Republican reps and tell them to stop obstructing them and stop the austerity.

But you didn't answer my question:

Why not just tax the poorest 100% of their income because they "use" more than they make? Why isn't that "fair"? That way the billionaires can buy a bigger megayacht.

Maybe you'll finally address it and then you can stop asking the same inane question over and over.

Reactionary 1% apologists (i.e. much of the conservative right) claim that wanting more and more of the nation's income and wealth is good for the economy because, for heaven's sake, getting 20% of the nation's income and having 40% of the nation's wealth just isn't enough for the poor dears.

Not nearly as greed as the 1% apologists who don't think the 1% getting 20% of the nation's income and having 40% of the nation's wealth, double since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, is enough.

For some, or many, more is never enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet the Reagan "trickle down" policies you seem to support did exactly that.

 

I don't know what "trickle down" means, but I don't support taking the property of others. I would have thought you were aware of this, given my posting record.