"Fair Share"

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

I have a question for you. How can you have a legitimate discussion about taxes and use hyperbole?

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..

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I have a question for you. How can you have a legitimate discussion about taxes and use hyperbole?

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?

inlet13

Does the government have a spending or a revenue problem?

Answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES9C7fX ... ure=relmfu

otter

MotoDC wrote:

otter wrote:

Obama tax plan:

---

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

:shock: Wow I hadn't seen those numbers lined up like that. Honestly, why even invest your capital with a structure like that? All that's going to do is force folks like me (and especially those with much more wealth than I) to put their money in alternative investments like multifamily housing units, REITs, bonds (bond income is 1099-INT, right? So it wouldn't be taxed at the new 39.6% dividend level?), etc. Oh, and to make sure I gift all my wealth to my kids and family before I die. There is something about the estate tax that is especially abhorrent to me.

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

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I have a question for you. How can you have a legitimate discussion about taxes and use hyperbole?

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..

'

Problem is, higher tax rates won't balance the budget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucoP4-06 ... ure=relmfu

otter

Remember when Tom Brokaw used to do "the fleecing of America" on the news every night?

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?

inlet13

otter wrote:

Remember when Tom Brokaw used to do "the fleecing of America" on the news every night?

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.

otter

inlet13 wrote:

otter wrote:

Remember when Tom Brokaw used to do "the fleecing of America" on the news every night?

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.

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...

know1

otter wrote:

Remember when Tom Brokaw used to do "the fleecing of America" on the news every night?

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?

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.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?

MayDay10

I know from getting out of college and struggling through my 20's to now, the more money I make/have, the easier it is to shield my money from taxes.

I am paying less in taxes now than my 20's self who was living paycheck to paycheck.

I am sure that the more and more you have, the more avenues there are to avoid tax burdens. Let's face it, rich people are making the rules.


I believe it is a revenue problem, and also a spending problem. I would like to see restructuring and an increased % spent on improvements at home, including Universal Health Care.

pandora

I would like to see a fair flat tax and a fair across the board sacrifice as far as budget cuts.
Fair is equal ...

but does anyone ever do their fair share? it's all relative and that makes the answer...
not often.

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

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.

...
What are the 3 heavy hitters in the Federal Government's Spending budget?
Social Security -21%
Medicare/Medicaid -20.7%
Department of Defense - 16.9%
Total - 57%
ref. http://cman.cx/blog/wp-content/uploads/ ... 009sp1.jpg
...
Next time you hear some fat fuck politician or blow hard political pundit talk about 'Spending Cuts'... tell them to hit the fattest pigs at the table.

Smellyman

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

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.

...
What are the 3 heavy hitters in the Federal Government's Spending budget?
Social Security -21%
Medicare/Medicaid -20.7%
Department of Defense - 16.9%
Total - 57%
ref. http://cman.cx/blog/wp-content/uploads/ ... 009sp1.jpg
...
Next time you hear some fat fuck politician or blow hard political pundit talk about 'Spending Cuts'... tell them to hit the fattest pigs at the table.

some think this is the problem though.

No government funded sex changes
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

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?

Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.

In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.

Your latter question doesn't make sense.

know1

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?

What about private schools?

Go Beavers

know1 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?

What about private schools?

If you think private schools do a better job, than support that claim.

hedonist

Smellyman wrote:

some think this is the problem though.

No government funded sex changes
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

Well now! I could get down with much of this.

I'd also say that any government employee who's done wrong loses all benefits, pension, etc.

(I'd also say that some WH staff need to re-familiarize themselves with flying coach, or pay for the better seat themselves)

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Do you have examples of this? And by what percentage was government reduced in those examples?

Yes - UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service.

In my personal opinion - UPS and FedEx provide better shipping services, economically. I also believe they could do what US Postal Service does, although there's huge resistance to that move - which is fine. You asked for an example, I provided one.

Your latter question doesn't make sense.

Key part in what you wrote is that it's your opinion. People drop the idea that private can do better than the government all the time like it's fact. If it's such a well known fact, then it should be easy to support the position with factual information.

The last part of what I was saying was asking for a number connected to the reduction in government when things that were done by the government were then handed over to the private sector. When people say they want a smaller government, are they saying fewer employers, lower spending, or fewer laws/regulation?

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

Key part in what you wrote is that it's your opinion. People drop the idea that private can do better than the government all the time like it's fact. If it's such a well known fact, then it should be easy to support the position with factual information.

The thing about this - is with you, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you're always going to say the burden of proof is on the other side and ask for more. I'd say that's not really true. You have an opinion that large government is great - I disagree. You ask for examples, I provide them. You then say that it's my opinion. Well, no shit. As for me supporting it. First, I have no reason to dig up data here. Second, I know for certain that the Post Office is broke. I also know UPS and Fed Ex would go out of business if they were broke. I also know that Fed Ex and UPS do a great job shipping packages. That's all facts. Finally, the plus here is to say with the private market, you pay when you want something. You don't pay simply "because" the service exists. It's more economically efficient -we've gone over this before.

Go Beavers wrote:

The last part of what I was saying was asking for a number connected to the reduction in government when things that were done by the government were then handed over to the private sector. When people say they want a smaller government, are they saying fewer employers, lower spending, or fewer laws/regulation?

The first sentence is slightly incoherent. I don't have this number, nor do I understand what the number would even be if was obtainable.

The second sentence - I think one could argue that smaller government would undoubtedly involve the first two (less "employees", lower spending). Smaller government very well may involve fewer laws and regulation too. I would think it would. For example, our income tax code is over 73,000 pages. 73,000! Is that necessary? Small government would say no - at least in my opinion. Why? Well, clearly, 73K pages involves too many rationales for escaping taxes - that's why it's 73K pages. These rationals also involve people who study it and people who defend it... and people who prosecute these millions of "rationals". Therefore, more pages most likely = more gov't employees (prosecuting, etc). In fact, since all of those pages are laws/regulations... more laws/regulations = most likely more employees. So, I kinda think all of the above - employees, spending and laws and regulation kinda are linked.