Options
"Fair Share"
know1
Posts: 6,763
A tangent in the DNC thread got me thinking.
Why are people worried about other people paying their "fair share".
Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?
I generally tune out anytime someone mentions the word fair in any context because I think one of the earliest lessons we learned in life is that it isn't fair and wasn't meant to be, but it just seems like this knee jerk reaction where it's a good thing for other people to drop more money into the big black hole that is our government. And it's a bad thing when they somehow give the government less.
Shouldn't we worry more about how much the government is taking in and what it's doing with that?
If someone can't point to a legitimate need for the government to take in more money, I'll bet we can point to a dozen places it should be able to cut to get there.
Why are people worried about other people paying their "fair share".
Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?
I generally tune out anytime someone mentions the word fair in any context because I think one of the earliest lessons we learned in life is that it isn't fair and wasn't meant to be, but it just seems like this knee jerk reaction where it's a good thing for other people to drop more money into the big black hole that is our government. And it's a bad thing when they somehow give the government less.
Shouldn't we worry more about how much the government is taking in and what it's doing with that?
If someone can't point to a legitimate need for the government to take in more money, I'll bet we can point to a dozen places it should be able to cut to get there.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Israel how about we get the $$$$$ we give them everysingle yr ...
This is an excellent start as well!
The biggest problem is that in order to cut the budget by any measurable amount, it will need to be with social security, medicare, and defense ... and politicians are scared crapless to touch any of them as it leads them open to major attacks (just ask Ryan and Obama).
There is no way my company would survive if they conducted business the way the government does. Similarly, there's no way my family would survive if living so beyond our means.
I mean, growing up, when I got my first checking/savings account at oh, 10 or 11 years old. Even I got the concept that if I want to stay in the positive, I need to spend less than I take in. No secret financial stash to dig into. No one to print more money for me. No one to say "here, you fucked up way more than once, but let me give you some more money so you can do the same."
A lot of little cutbacks can make a huge difference. A different mindset can do the same as well.
For my part, I agree with you, know1. Seems to me that the Feds have more than enough money to make their shit work, it's just a question of prioritizing (including the defense budget) and then expecting more out of their employees. The amount of waste in terms of productive man hours-to-salary in the federal gov't is quite a thing.
If you want to look at it that way then... sure.
Why should they take less from me than they do from you? Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?
The end result is the burden of supporting our country's infrastructure is being almost eliminated from the people who can afford it more and shouldered on the people who can't.
We can debate what to cut and what not to, if you'd like. My first vote is "end the war, end the tax exemptions of churches that just use the money to fund politics anyway."
No jet rides for any White house staff unless it's Government business
No more extravagant Ball's or Parties
Government employees caught miss using funds need to pay back double of what they stole
All Government employees must be held accountable
No double retirement checks from the government
Just a few ways to save a couple billion
As for churches and tax incentives, as long as you also don't give tax incentives to any other non-profit out there, then hey, go for it.
Yes, I get a lot of tax breaks for various things. The reason that someone like Mitt Romney (who is a HELL of a lot richer than I would ever even WANT to be) pays "more" in taxes is that he's worth more than a stadium full of people. The top 1% earners in America make enough money to feed the rest of the entire world... for 500 YEARS.
While I'm not a "socialist" who would suggest that I don't deserve my income or advocate making me share it with anyone, exactly.. I find it obscene that thanks to all sorts of odd rules and loop holes and silly regulations that are out there, Walmart (that's made more than you'll make in your entire life in the time it's taken me to write this post) uses shady employment practices that keep over half of their employees eligible for food stamps and doesn't pay any health insurance. Which means that you and I foot the bill for their food stamps and should they need emergency care... we pay for that, too.
If you're going to make the argument that the Waltons (who, if you add up all six of them, have more more money than the bottom 40% of the entire population) pay their "fair share," I'm going to disagree with you.
I figure as long as a charity is actually doing community support and not just taking that money and building castles and shrines to it's "god" and funding politicians...they are just fine with me.
The challenge is that it would be really problematic to ensure that people like Romney -- who get so much of their "income" from passive sources -- pay the same % as the rest of us wage-earner types. We could tax capital gains, interest income, property sales tax, rental income, dividend income at higher rates, but really that impacts the middle class quite a bit as well. Perhaps not as much, but there would have to be an adjustment somewhere else if we're really going to be "fair" to the 99%.
The Walmart piece is way off topic simply because it's a corporation. It's a conversation worth having, but not only is it not what this thread is about, man is it complicated.
Never said anything about "fair share" because I find it indefinable. You "know" they don't pay their fair share because the difference between their wealth (which is in the top .01%, not the 1%) is so unimaginably incomparable to the bottom 40% that it seems obvious.
By the way, not sure where you got that 40% stat, but I imagine it has a lot to do with the housing crash. It's most of America's #1 asset and #1 liability, so when its value tanks, so do most people's net wealth. Hmm...hold on, google is my friend. Here is perhaps what you were referring to. Interestingly, there's a quote from Forbes at the bottom -- "He added: 'If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25 percent of Americans.' " I.e., net wealth can be a very misleading statistic.
Then you're kinda coming from a position of religious oppression. You're penalizing a non-profit purely for being founded or based in religion. How would you define whether a non-profit was religious or not? Additionally, you aren't really suggesting that non-religious non-profits don't fund politicians, are you? Cause that would be kinda silly.
Don't be silly.
It's just fine if a non-profit is "religious," but just the act of being a church shouldn't come with automatic tax exemptions. If you want to get your followers to donate their own money so you can build a big castle to worship in, be my guest. But it shouldn't be tax-exempt.
Of course not. But those aren't charities and shouldn't be tax exempt.
NOW
OBAMA PROPOSAL
Top Income tax rate
35%
39.6%
Income/Payroll
37%
52%
Capital Gains
15%
28%
Dividends
15%
39.6%
Estate Tax
0
55%
Source: Wall Street Journal
Remember that people including Romney first paid the top income tax rate (we have a progressive tax rate)
then the with the money "the government let's him keep" he invests. When his investments make money he pays tax on that. Then there are so many other taxes we all pay like sales tax...
More than half Americans pay no income tax at all.
This fair share nonsense isn't truly fair by any definition of the word fair.
Does anyone remember when Brokaw used to do "the fleecing of America" segments on the NBC news?
Big government just creates big waste and produces a class of people that is inherently unAmerican.
People run from governments that take the money and live like royalty; they used to run here. Obama is taking away the last place to run to. It is a crying shame that future generations will never imagine what it was like to be free from "in your face" government.
If the govt has control of our health.......this is the end
I'm talking about the government's share as a whole, not from individuals. You're turning it right back into the argument that I said makes no sense. I'm trying to look at it from the government's fair share perspective. I think they already have their fair share (more actually), so why make others pay even more?
I agree with you about the war. End it now.
I don't agree about removing tax exemptions, because again that's just giving more money to the government.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I have a question for you. How can you have a legitimate discussion about taxes and use hyperbole?
almost eliminated? hardly anything? the top 1% pay ~30% depending on the year...
The top fifth (20%) of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
(from CNN MONEY, 2009)
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/IncomeDistributionMaster1-650x436.png
less from me than they do from you? they will never take less money from you than they do from me if you are in the 1%...that is how it works. the rate may be different based on a multitude of reasons. Unearned income vs earned income is one of them. But total value...99.9% of the time you will pay more...
Capital gains are a focus of most of that. What I don't understand is that the people complain about the tax structure in this country have rarely, if ever, said "I think I should pay more than you are requiring from me, so I AM GOING TO PAY MORE...not force everyone to pay more, I am simply going to pay more". People who take deferred compensation and use capital gains as their main income steam have no right to criticize others for the taxes they pay or don't pay. They could just as easily take a salary, or simply pay more. But you see it has to be fair :roll: fair is where you go to sell a pig...
if you really want it to be fair you take the same amount from every dollar earned in the country...and do away with the unearned income distinction. That is fair.
Now if you want to talk progressive tax structure that is fine. but no where in that is the distribution "fair"...progressive tax systems are not about being fair. So using the term Fair share to describe one's participation in it is a misnomer at best
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yep.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
This is a more acceptable compromise than what I understood your original point to be. You can't really blame my interpretation, considering the anti-Christian fervor you've been known to throw around here.
Again, a more acceptable compromise than what I understood your original point to be.
But this is a tiny little subtopic of the point of the OP.
I have never understood the estate tax. How the fuck is taxing money that has already been taxed simply because someone died "paying your fair share" that is fucking disgusting
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's actually a fair question.
And of course the nature of Internet forum boards being that nobody reads things if theyre too long or formatted poorly, it's hard to really make points about intentionally complex topics like "who pays more."
Yes, I probably pay "more" in taxes than the guy who made my coffee today. But I'm probably paying a lower percentage for many reasons and the cards have been stacked in favor of those who earn and have more.
If we are to believe the rumors about Mitt Romeny not paying anything for 10 years, and I've got more than a few reasons to believe that's true, that's a whole other story. The point is that the bush-era tax cuts, grouped with huge raises in spending, have created a big black hole that sucked us in. For lack of a better metaphor.
Extending those cuts for the bottom earners and letting them expire for the higher earners PLUS ending the endless wars, investing back in our country and infrastructure AND changing laws so mega-corporations can't get away with paying their employees unlivable wages while expecting the tax payers to pay for their food stamps and health care is, I think, the best option for escaping the black hole.
And to be fair, I'm in pre-production for my next movie, I'm on about 8 cups of coffee and I'm not really sure how much sense I'm making. And can't be arsed to go back and proof read..
lol fair enough.
I understand the idea behind wanting more revenue for the federal gov't. I just don't subscribe to that camp. Like a few others, I think they already have their fair share...to the tune of about 2 trillion dollars a year in revenue. That is more than enough.
having the rate go from 35 to 39 isn't going to affect the people you want it to affect though. There would still be a deficit if we doubled income tax revenue. I can only find 09 quickly, but they took in about ~900,000,000 in income tax and the deficit was ~1.2 trillion. that means...if the federal gov't took in an additional 900,000,000 they would still be running a deficit of 300,000,000. That is fucking ridiculous. I almost get too angry to type that...
Raising the income tax rate 4 % isn't going to raise the salt content of the ocean any more than what happens to it if you film a movie there and someone misses
The federal gov't cannot be a decider of fair on a large scale...Like I said, if they were interested in fair they would simply tax every dollar the same...it will never happen and the effort of trying to get to "fair" gets side tracked on silly things like 4% of a tax rate for rich people rather than simply being fair with the money they do get...which is no small number mind you...and it is also an impossible task to be "fair" with it.
Who knows...I do love the idea of us living in a country where towns, counties and states get more of a say in what is fair for them...I just don't think that can happen with such a large federal gov't...who knows
was this formatted correctly to get someone to read it?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES9C7fX ... ure=relmfu
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.
source: Communist Manifesto ~ Karl Marx
Problem is, higher tax rates won't balance the budget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucoP4-06 ... ure=relmfu
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I cannot understand any person any where who thinks that taking more and more money from citizens to give to a federal government would do any good.
The fed should run as lean as possible. Let the people have the money.
People are good and generous. Government is a necessary bad who is generous with other people's money.
Isn't it that simple?
Completely agree. I think it's interesting to think about why we actually need government in it's current form. And most answers have to do with "public goods" and "law" and "defense". I don't always agree, but fair enough.
I'm curious if in the distant future in a peaceful world, a need for government in its' current form will continue to exist. If technology increases to the point where you don't need state employees (or only a handful), why do you really need government? Or why can't you just have an automated system allocate money to private enterprise when a public project needs to go into effect. Clearly, this is a hard sell now. But, I can envision a a distant future where government exists, but at a tiny percentage of what it does now.
There's really no need for govt to be so pervasive in our society. Private markets can do most, if not all, of what government does... and probably better.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
In the distant future......AND......in the distant past.
Our government is here because without it freedom and liberty would be a fantasy. However, since my frat bro Woody Wilson brought socialism into our country the pendulum has always swung a little further left. Now we are at a moment where freedom and liberty come in second to the wishes of the leaders.
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...
Totally agree with this.
It just doesn't make sense for a person to call for other people to pay more money into an entity that already has more than its fair share. It's almost as if its for spite, jealousy, bitterness, etc. and not based on reason.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?