Paying a "fair share"

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FrankCapua, Apr 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FireBreather

    FireBreather Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You said "not to the guy with $100". I said BS, and am now calling what you said what it is: the Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion.

    20% of $100 is $20. 20% of 1,000,000 is $200,000.

    The guy with $1,000,000 is paying incredibly far more, so the "not to the guy with $20 is a pure fabricated - and leftist - canard.

    I don't have to assume. I reacted to what you said. You can call yourself whatever you want; all that matters is what you say.

    Apparently you cannot imagine someone with my POV who was also desperately poor. In fact, I was homeless for about a month.

    So if you want to double down, you can try to call me a liar, at which point the reason for speaking with you goes away permanently.

    I don't know. You brought it up.

    Sweet. This from the guy who insinuated that I was lying about once being extremely poor.

    If you want to give some other motivation - since I offered a range which covers everything, from ignorance to agenda, you be my guest. My assumptions are laid carefully, and with leeway.

    Uh, no. Rightists will criticize the crap that you say that is leftist, and vice versa. You are only center because you AVERAGE OUT at center.

    Which is pretty much useless, and a lot like this little fella:

    [​IMG]

    It's arrogant to assume that because you disagree with someone's conclusions, that they must not have thought of them themselves. The hallmark of internalized thoughts is being able to defend them in debate.

    So it seems that you're bringing about an end to modesty in this effort of yours.

    I hate central bankers. The FED is responsible for many if not most of our societal ills.

    Gosh. Did I think of that all by myself?

    Free trade doesn't benefit only 'top brackets'. Free trade benefits the participants who know what they're doing, and when they benefit, they move into the 'top brackets' eventually - if they wish.

    I am certainly not your friend, and it's smarmy for you to claim so. There is nothing about a damaging ideology which is a joke.

    Ok.

    :rolleyes:
     
  2. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, I can see where this is going.

    You're on 'ignore'.

    Goodbye.
     
  3. k995

    k995 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's not simply paying what he is due.
     
  4. FireBreather

    FireBreather Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :lol:

    Let the record show another leftist so afraid to confront a simple question I asked that he would rather claim to place a poster on ignore than actually answer the question.

    This is particularly delicious hypocrisy, considering the first line of Johnny-C's signature line:

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

    :roflol:

    I throw the question to the floor of leftists, particularly Last Drop who seemed to like the evasion of Johnny-C:

    If you leftists constantly decry the power of Government to create unfairness, how does allowing the Government to increase the amount it collects in taxes somehow DECREASE the amount of influence and control the Government can exert?
     
  5. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He told Joe the Plumber -- and by extension all Americans -- that it's time to "spread the wealth around a little." Well, Mr. President, no time like the present to lead by example.
     
  6. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then I'd suggest the guy making $10K go out and obtain a skill that employers will value.
     
  7. k995

    k995 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you understand what the executive branch does?

    Btw:
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102589022

    "I realize that the president does not want to be very aggressive in tax planning as it would not look too good if he did. But when I review tax returns, I see opportunity to at least have the conversation on should we consider changes based upon the person's tax and personal situation. Specifically with the president, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more than $1 million), over this 8-year period of time that we need to at least discuss to see if it is an option."

    He is paying all the taxes required, (even the ones he signed into law) and if he wanted he could pay a lot less. Seems like he is doing precisely what he said.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes thats realistic everybody working in the USmaking 100k+ .
     
  8. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The investment, regardless of source for the investment, is not taxed. Only net profits are taxed and that money has never been taxed before. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar and all net income should be taxed at the same rate.

    Only spending on consumption generates an economic stimulus. The annual GDP is based upon the "products and services" provided during the year and that exclusively relates to consumption. If I recall correctly there's roughly $150 trillion in "investment" trading every month but none of that contributes to the GDP because there isn't any consumption related to it (except for statisically insignificant transaction fees by the brokers).

    In point of fact consumption drives the ecomony. When an enterprise has more demand for goods or services it expands to meet those needs. If it has less demand then it logically contracts to prevent bankruptcy. The expansion of enterprise is not driven by "investments" but instead is driven by consumer demand. Virtually all expansion of enterprise is funded by the profits of the enterprise with virtually none coming from outside investors.

    I'm not a liberal and I make proposals that will reduce the necessity for government welfare assistance by reducing poverty.

    People are not poor because they're lazy and even spending "welfare" dollars benefits the economy. Think of how many grocery stores/markets would go out of business if suddenly they lost the $80 billion that is provided for by SNAP benefits.
     
  9. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem goes far beyond the poor.

    Based upon the stagnant wages since 2000 these highly skilled college graduates have lost over 25% of their purchasing power based upon inflation alone. So why is this happening?

    We need only ask one question. Which political party is primarily responsible for policy decisions (and laws) that shift economic power from the workers to the owners/managers of enterprise?

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/real-root-america-wage-problem-103000382.html
     
  10. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We need only ask one question. Why has our 80 year experiment with a central welfare state that 30% of the taxpayers pay 35-50% of their working lives in taxes for currently been such a massive failure?
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's an easily answered question.

    Welfare assistance, that mitigates the effects of poverty, does absolutely nothing to reduce the poverty that necessitates the welfare spending. We're addressing the symptom but not the problem.

    The perfect example is Social Security. In the 1930's Congress identified the problem that roughly 1/2 of Americans did not accumulate enough personal wealth to provide income when they became to old to work. Instead of addressing the problem (i.e. lack of personal wealth accumulation) they addressed they symptom (i.e. lack of income) with Social Security.

    "Republicans" today are making the same mistake in addressing government welfare. They want to cut the spending but the spending is just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the poverty that generates the necessity for the spending. You don't fix a problem by addressing the symptom as opposed to addressing the problem.

    To address poverty we need to raise the income levels of the working poor. It's that simple and there are two ways to accomplish this.

    1. Increase the minimum wage so that a household can afford to live on the wages they receive from their employment. This is the "living wage" argument based upon a government mandate.

    2. Increase the power of organized labor so that it can negotiate a mutually acceptable and voluntary compensation contract with the employers on behalf of the employees.

    Of the two options, as a libertarian, I overwhelmingly endorse option #2 because it's based upon negotiated mutually acceptable voluntary compensation contracts between the workers and the employers. I endorse #2 because if we don't have that then option #1 is the only other alternative if we want to reduce poverty which, in turn, reduces the necessity to mitigate the effects of the poverty with government welfare assistance.

    As the article I cited noted the problem is that, based upon political agendas that favor the owners of enterprise over the workers, we no longer have negotiated and mutually acceptable voluntary compensation employment contracts. The individual is incapable of negotiating a mutually acceptable compensation contract when the employers offer a "take it or leave it" market driven compensation package. It pits "David" (the individual worker) up against "Goliath" (the entire market) and, in spite of Biblican fairy tales, David always loses.

    The rise of the middle class in America corresponded to the power of the unions to negotiate mutually acceptable voluntary compensation packages on behalf of the workers with employers. The rise of poverty corresponds to the decline in the power of the unions by right-wing legislative agendas that have gutted the power of the unions.

    Those that oppose both unions and the minimum wage are really the ones responsible for the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty with government welfare assistance because they're responsible for the poverty.
     
    Meta777 and (deleted member) like this.
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How would you increase the power of labor without violating the person or property of the employer?
     
  13. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not the federal government's place to "address poverty," and the working poor already pay little in taxes. Any efforts to do so will and have failed, will be and are counterproductive. We have 50/80 years of datapoints proving that. Regardless of what you claim to be, no libertarian would suggest central fiat, larger government, over market solutions to address social issues. If your response is that your are a fiscal statist and social libertarian, then what you actually are is something else, not a libertarian.

    Only 5% of all workers earn minimum wage, only 2% of hourly workers do, so all you will do with the above is freeze teenagers and youth starting out out of the labor market. I'm a perfect example, earning the $2.30 minimum wage at 13 when I started work, and within a couple of summers, was earning $5.00, well above min wage. Under a "living wage" minimum wage regime, that employer would have almost certainly not hired me, and would simply have demanded more of his preexisting hourly employees. There are millions of young people like I was.

    How? Collective bargaining is protected in the private sector and has been for decades. Why don't you say what you mean and advocate abolishing "right to work" laws that any legitimate libertarian would support? Then you can rationalize how any scheme of personal liberty can be reconciled with mandatory union membership and dues. The only other thing here would be mandatory federal collective bargaining rights for municipal unions, again decidedly "unlibertarian," and creates unavoidable conflicts of interest between public sector and taxpayers. Bad idea, and we also have many datapoints of bankrupting municipalities held hostage by municipal unions in evidence.

    1. Fiat and central labor protection are not "negotiation" nor are they "voluntary." 2. You aren't a libertarian, just another unionist. 3. The third option is to reduce the drag of overpowered, overlarge, inefficient, wasteful, grafty, hyperregulatory central government on markets for labor. This is really the only option a legit libertarian would support.

    Yes, we do have those things. What we don't have, due to needlessly expensive government and regulations, is strong competitive forces in a healthy, rationally regulated market that push the cost of skilled labor up. As far as unskilled labor? That was never meant to be a career, and we've know for decades that market was weakening due to a host of factors. Grasshoppers who fiddle away, drop out of school, make bad decisions such as having kids they can't afford? It is neither government's nor the taxpayers' obligation to address those problems and any attempts to do so will be counterproductive, as the abject failure of our "war on poverty" proves conclusively. Fiat that reduces global competitiveness is not the answer, reducing the sunk costs of government at all levels, but particularly central, is.

    Rest is empty union label claptrap.
     
  14. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Likes Received:
    11,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who want to raise the minimum wage should start a business and then they could pay people what ever they want to.
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering the current US budget and population, every American's 'share' of funding the federal government is about $12,600 (minus corporate, capital gains tax, excise tax income which is small). In this sense, a family of four would owe about $50,400 each year. Since the median household income is about $52K, it is unlikely in the entire future of the USA that Americans will ever pay 'their share'. What they will pay will range from 0% to 40%. I'll guess at least 75 million are paying 0% of federal income taxes, another 75 million are paying 20% of federal income taxes, and 25 million are paying 80% of federal income taxes. Actually, about 150 million Americans should thank their lucky stars that 25 million Americans are so far willing to fund 80% of the federal income tax revenues. Interesting to me is the current revenue picture appears to be extremely progressive, however, millions of Americans and idiot politicians and mindless talking heads are whining that the 25 million are not paying enough and need to pay more. Let's see...the 25 million already pay more than 80% of the federal income tax revenues and the parrots think they should pay more...like what...90%, 95%, or bingo!! 100% would be nice.

    To answer the thread question; The Obama's 'share' of federal income tax funding would be about $50,400 for a family of four and I'm guessing they probably paid more.

    Lastly, those who use percentages to make their political positions are being disingenuous. Hey that $50K car is 300% of my income while it's only 5% for a millionaire so therefore I'm getting screwed...I demand equality! I should be entitled to get that car for 5% of my income. IMO it's a self-serving use of the word 'percentage'...
     
  16. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What number do you propose for the minimum wage? $15/hour? $20/hour? $25/hour? Other?

    If you increase the minimum wage to $15/hour or more, which happens to be a little more than double the current $7.25/hour, don't you need to double all wages?

    Or do you believe those currently earning $15/hour will suddenly find themselves earning the lowest wages no matter their skills and performance to date?

    What happens to the US economy if all wages are doubled? You think there will be growth but how do you reconcile the inflation?

    How do you reconcile a doubling of the labor cost but no gain at all in productivity?



    Lastly, here's what I believe a 'living wage' is: Whatever an individual or household can consistently earn, this is how much they have to spend, and they design their life around this wage. If they wish more in life, which equates to greater income, the worker must take steps to increase their value in the workplace. I do not know how this can play out any other way without total disrespect for the tens of millions of Americans who achieved more based on their personal actions?
     
  17. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Likes Received:
    11,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My definition of "fair" is that you make all that your talent will pay you. Someone makes more than you, and I don't care how much more -- tough. Get off your backside and do something about it. Don't set on your backside and want them to "donate" to you.
     
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great post! Though I believe there is actually a 3rd option here.
    As you said, one option is for government to force the private sector to hire folks at a certain wage,
    and one is for government to empower unions to do the same albeit through negation instead of mandate.
    But yet another option is for the government to simply hire folks directly to do the jobs American's need done and which the private sector either isn't interested in doing or does but at costs which are unaffordable for many of the Americans that would benefit from the products and or services produced.

    I'm not talking some short term shot-in-the-arm stimulus-like thing here, but an actual long-term program put in place
    to ensure the continual efficient utilization of our willing-labor force. In other words, what we need is a new W.P.A.
    Yes, a Works Progress Administration 2.0., a successor to a program which, along with yet more government hiring in support of the war effort at the time, and in the midst of the greatest economic downturn this nation has ever seen, worked so well that we eventually decided to get rid of it because there weren't enough idle hands around.

    (oh, and just for completeness, there is technically also an option 4......continue to do what we're currently doing)....

    edit: or as Sanskrit pointed out, option 5.....don't address poverty at all...

    -Meta
     
  19. gorte

    gorte Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there is NO "fair share" for those who disagee with 90+% of how the tax money is spent. my fair share is ZERO, cause the govt shouldn't be taxing income at ALL. if they can't fund it with lotteries and VOLUNTARY payments (like payment for enforcement of contracts) and (maybe, I"m not convinced) taxes on imports and large corporations, then govt shouldn't be doing it.
     
  20. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    A fair wage is the wage you agreed to work for. Wage itself, has nothing to do with prosperity. Affordability has everything to do with it.

    The minimum wage could be raised to 100k, but it will not increase affordability. Why is it that the minimum wage is never enough? Simply because it is irrelevant. The unintended consequence of the minimum wage is it eliminates entry level jobs that provide for numerous non breadwinner activities. A kid buying a car or insurance to drive a car becomes just another burden to the family breadwinner.

    Many of these lost jobs could have been training for future breadwinner jobs. All I see is a country eliminating jobs and liberty and replacing them with welfare lines and heavy debt.

    <<< MODERATOR EDIT: INSULT REMOVED >>>
     
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So...are you OK with Free Riders then?
    And what happens when due to a large prevalence of such free riders, we as a country end up worse off?
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For years Congress and the states (predominately fueled by Republican economic policies) have been gutting union power as well as continuing to spread rumors of union corruption that was effectively ended in the 1970's. It's time for politicians to first be honest and realize that unions are vital for the existance of the middle class. Next we need to see the repeal of many anti-union laws as well as creating some new that promote them. The unions need to be empowered again (e.g. repeal Right to Work laws) and the negative press about corruption that ended decades ago really needs to end. We need honesty as opposed to the deception that has been used to forment anti-union sentiment.

    The "right of property" of the owner are never violated because all union contracts are negotiated between the union and the employer and the contract is a voluntary, not compulsory, agreement.
     
  23. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The suggestion doesn't work for numerous reasons but predominately because it doesn't influence compensation in the private sector.
     
  24. FireBreather

    FireBreather Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why? Cuz you said so? Your claim makes no sense from a business perspective, because the more you tax the less incentive there is to engage in the behavior. Investment of personal assets is a major economic machine, and you'd do well to encourage as much of it as you can.

    "Only spending on consumption generates an economic stimulus"?

    Just where the hell do you get that addled notion? If I invest in a business, and it expands, it automatically widens the tax base. THAT is the best economic stimulus there is, because of its sustainability.

    You can eat pumpkin seeds, or you can plant pumpkins. Which one would you guess generates more seeds?

    Myriad incredibly popular products were imagined - and then produced - without any demand whatsoever. Steve Jobs is a foremost example. He had to FIGHT to convince investors that there was a need for what he imagined.

    Your commentary on cyclical demand is a separate issue.

    :roflol:

    Look up venture capitalism and then tell us all about how much you know on this topic. :roll:


    You have obviously liberal views. Obviously. Your economics are likewise liberal: that is to say...uninformed.



    Wut? You cannot imagine how someone could be poor because they're lazy? That's another ridiculous assertion.

    Broken window fallacy, and a laughable assertion. Removing SNAP will not suddenly cause people to stop eating. You can bet the bank that people will figure out how to get the funds necessary to feed themselves.

    And - in fact - maybe they'd start buying bags of beans instead of surf and turf.
     
    Sanskrit and (deleted member) like this.
  25. Jack Links

    Jack Links Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course not. Democrats deem themselves the overlords. Rules don't apply to them. They spout this nonsense then steal other peoples' money to 'help' people.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page