"Fair Share"?

Well on that we agree, which make the orginial question somewhat moot. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't think the original question is moot, since policy makers will have to offer some specifics regarding top-bracket rates, levels at which deductions should be capped, etc. And in anticipation of that, we can kibitz and complain! You can be sure that plenty of financial pundits and journalists will do just that.

And your last post is simply a collection of non sequiturs and meaningless statements.

If your primary claim is that we spend too much on defense, I agree with you. But your statement that we have "taken from the Social Security and Medicare 'surplus' to pay for defense" is misleading. In fact, the "surplus" was for many years just put in a big pot where it was spent on everything. And the rise in defense spending pales in comparison to the expanding level of spending on everything else, including entitlement and social welfare programs in recent years, the costs of which which will increase rapidly in the absence of serious reform. So you need to consider how the whole pie was sliced.

Reductions in the federal income tax burden on most middle class workers greatly exceeds the extent to which state and local sales taxes and the like have added to their overall burden of taxation. The tax system, taking into account all forms of taxation, has actually become more progressive, not less, across most of the income strata. Note also that wealthy taxpayers do not pay significantly less than they would have under the code and rate structure of fifty years ago. The fact that the very wealthy often pay taxes at rates lower than workers whose incomes are near the mean is nothing new, as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

You need to learn to read. Just because i didn't pull a random number outa my ass doesn't mean i didn't answer the question. Originally Posted by Doove

I can read just fine. Presumably, so can you, at least insofar as you probably recognize most of the words on a page and have some idea what they mean if taken individually. But when your brain tries to connect the dots and actually understand the gist of the message, it seems to have a bit of trouble -- as evidenced by your silly claim that you actually answered the question, when all you did was offer a vague generality.

And i'm still waiting for chica chaser (or you, or exnyer, or whomever) to answer my question about the exact number in dollars that they think the budget should be for all the social programs.

And how about defense? Give me a number. Originally Posted by Doove

OK. My answer to both questions is "substantially less."

See? By your line of reasoning, I "answered" your questions.

But more to the point, ExNYer previously noted the fatuousness of that line of questioning. Go back and read post #86.

Even more to the point, spending is not the subject of this thread. The share of the burden that should be shouldered by affluent taxpayers is. If you want to talk about spending, you're welcome to start a thread on the subject.

Why is it when you ''cut taxes at all cost'' folks cry about the rich paying to high a rate and the poor not enough? Why is that. If cutting taxes are so good, why do you bitch about the poor paying no Fed taxes? You should celebrate your idiotic principal. Yet you bitch. Originally Posted by WTF

Because...

...wait for it...

they're Whiny-Little-Bitches...

...whose wife hates them, whose dog hates them, whose cat could give a shit less about them (well, cats do that to everyone), and whose children, much like the providers, see them as ATMs. Yep, they're just poor, sweet, innocent victims who can't understand why no one likes them.

Is it fair that we have taken from the SS and Medicare Surplus to pay for Defense and then not ask folks whose wealth has increased X-fold to not pay more?

Is it fair to try and pin Defense spending to GDP and then cry about Obama doubling the national debt, just like Reagan? Originally Posted by WTF

What I do not think is fair, is for us to spend beyond our means, I also do not think it fair that while we have cut the tax rate at the Federal level over the last thirty years (A progressive tax) we have increased it at the state and local level (regressive taxes). That along with globalization (cheap labor) has given rise to this huge income disparity in this country.

One sides reply has been this stupid Ayn Rand cry about doers and takers. The takers have been the very wealthy who have their income taxed at a much lower level than the working man and have spent that working mans SS savings and is now wanting the working man to pay more.

Why is it when you ''cut taxes at all cost'' folks cry about the rich paying to high a rate and the poor not enough? Why is that. If cutting taxes are so good, why do you bitch about the poor paying no Fed taxes? You should celebrate your idiotic principal. Yet you bitch. Originally Posted by WTF

Christ, that is one dumb rant.

Is it fair that we have taken from the SS and Medicare Surplus to pay for Defense and then not ask folks whose wealth has increased X-fold to not pay more?

Is it fair to try and pin Defense spending to GDP and then cry about Obama doubling the national debt, just like Reagan? Originally Posted by WTF

Money is fungible. You can't attach ownership to one group of dollars and say that it "belongs" to such-and-such a program.

If the 2013 budget increases spending on dredging intercoastal waterways by $50 million and at the same time decreases spending on high school tutoring programs by $700 million, you can't say that "they" took money from education to do dredging.

The money all gets thrown into a pot and Congress votes on how to spend it. Politics is about making choices. That's what Congress does.

You may disagree with those choices (everyone does to some degree) and you may argue that Congress spends too much on defense (I agree) or some other program, but attributing dollar X as being subtracted from program Y and added to program Z is bullshit.

And, yet, I fully expect you to do it another 20 times before the end of the year.

What I do not think is fair, is for us to spend beyond our means, I also do not think it fair that while we have cut the tax rate at the Federal level over the last thirty years (A progressive tax) we have increased it at the state and local level (regressive taxes). That along with globalization (cheap labor) has given rise to this huge income diaparity in this country. Originally Posted by WTF

[SIZE=3]
Not all state taxes are regressive. State income taxes are also progressive. That's why a lot of people are leaving NY and California.

And state and federal taxes should not be tied to one another - which is what you are implying when you say that it is unfair that "we" haveincreased state taxes while decreasing federal taxes.

The states are supposed to be separate political entities with their own taxing powers. They have their own spending priorities to support. If the states want to coordinate SPENDING with the federal government, more power to them. It is good and efficient use of money to avoid redundant spending, or worse, adverse spending.

And while we are at it, let's make state and federal taxes even more independent by eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes. That just causes people living in lower tax states to subsidize the state spending in other states via their federal taxes.

It will also broaden the federal tax base and help close the federal budget gap.

BTW, what is your solution to the cheap labor problem caused by globalization? Tariffs on imported goods? Cut immigration, especially illegal immigration?

4] Originally Posted by WTF;105196246[/SIZE

One sides reply has been this stupid Ayn Rand cry about doers and takers. The takers have been the very wealthy who have their income taxed at a much lower level than the working man and have spent that working mans SS savings and is now wanting the working man to pay more. Originally Posted by WTF;105196246[/SIZE

I see you haven't read Ayn Rand. Her main idea was that the "doers' in society get rich through their own efforts (i.e., operate a better railroad, build better steel), not by feeding off federal subsidies, grants, tax abatements, voiding the patents of others, and other forms of crony capitalism. And "takers" are the folks (both rich and poor) who try to use the power of government to snatch as much of the doers' money as possible while doing as little of their own work as possible.

I don't care for her philosophy because it makes ZERO allowance for the genuinely needy who get sick or are injured, etc. She droned on and on for 800 pages but somehow forgot to mention how to take care of someone who comes down with polio, while still fighting off the lazy moochers.

The wealthy are not "takers" because they do not pay income taxes at a much lower rate than the working man. The working man, especially the working poor, pay taxes at a near zero rate. The wealthy pay a top marginal rate at 35% or so, and it is going to go up to 39.6%. The last time I checked, 39.6% was higher than 0-5%.

The argument of the left is that the higher marginal rate paid by the rich should be higher still. 50%? 80%? I don't know, none of the lefties will let themselves get tied down to a number.

The wealthy cannot "take" Social Security money from anyone.

Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Oprah, Mark Cuban, and Michael Dell never "took" anything from me or you or from Social Security. They sold stuff that people wanted to buy and they got fabulously rich as a result.

And the fact that their top marginal rate to 30% or 35% or 39.6% instead or 55% did not rob me or you or Social Security, either. Only Congress can do that - by spending more than it raises in taxes. And Congress always has the option to spend LESS.

Why is it when you ''cut taxes at all cost'' folks cry about the rich paying to high a rate and the poor not enough? Why is that. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't say cut taxes at all costs. In fact I think the top marginal rate must be increased a bit, as well as the rates paid by middle class folks. But I insist that it be accompanied by reduced spending, BOTH defense and entitlements. Start by raising the retirement age and means-testing SS benefits.

If cutting taxes are so good, why do you bitch about the poor paying no Fed taxes? You should celebrate your idiotic principal. Originally Posted by WTF

Nice mischaracterization there.

Taxpayers aren't bitching because the "poor" are paying no taxes. The bottom 47% pay no federal income taxes, but they are NOT all poor. There is a difference between low income and poor. The poor are probably no more than the bottom quintile (20%). How do you explain the next 27%? You have people who are just below the median income level who pay nothing to operate the country.

The taxpaying 53% are bitching because the non-taxpaying 47% want even more benefits for their non-existent dollars.

as evidenced by your silly claim that you actually answered the question, when all you did was offer a vague generality. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Oh please.

I answered the question with an "it depends". It depends on factors that you, or i, or exnyer can't determine at any given point in time. I explained this. Get off your high freakin' horse and read with a bit more of an open mind sometime.

What i'm saying is that a 45% tax rate when we're at full employment, living in peace time, running large surpluses, and have little to no debt is far different, and far less fair than a 45% tax rate would be when we're in the middle of 2 wars, running huge deficits, have large swaths of people dependent on social programs, and have a huge debt we need to pay off.

So while you may or may not agree with my answer, it's an answer. A very clear one at that.

OK. My answer to both questions is "substantially less."

See? By your line of reasoning, I "answered" your questions.

Yup. You think i was actually looking for a dollar amount? I was making a point of the stupidity of the "what rate is fair" question. Or, rather, as you would say, i was noting the fatuousness of the question.

And unless you wanna try your hand at actually giving me a dollar amount, i think my point was made.

But more to the point, ExNYer previously noted the fatuousness of that line of questioning. Go back and read post #86.

No, all he did was dodge it. Because he knows he would look like a fool if he admitted he can't answer it knowledgeably, in the same thread where he criticizes me (and others) for not answering the question he wants us to answer, that can't be answered knowledgeably. So instead he tried to note the fatuousness of that line of questioning.

in the interim, the tax cuts sunset and the rates return to pre Bush years

fair?

certainly workable inasmuch as the country didnt vaporize under Clinton or 43.

Oh please.

I answered the question with an "it depends". It depends on factors that you, or i, or exnyer can't determine at any given point in time. I explained this. Get off your high freakin' horse and read with a bit more of an open mind sometime.


What i'm saying is that a 45% tax rate when we're at full employment, living in peace time, running large surpluses, and have little to no debt is far different, and far less fair than a 45% tax rate would be when we're in the middle of 2 wars, running huge deficits, have large swaths of people dependent on social programs, and have a huge debt we need to pay off.


So while you may or may not agree with my answer, it's an answer. A very clear one at that. Originally Posted by Doove

If you think you gave a "clear answer", I hate to think what you feel that a fuzzy, muddled answer might look like!

Policy makers are going to have to come up with specifics. You know, things like actual marginal rates and deduction limits. There's obviously no "correct answer" to the questions we challenged you to answer, but surely you must have an opinion regarding what you consider "fair." If you do not want to give specifics, and only wish to offer vague generalities, fine. You should just say so or ignore the question. Claiming that you offered a substantive answer just makes you look foolish.

Yup. You think i was actually looking for a dollar amount? I was making a point of the stupidity of the "what rate is fair" question. Or, rather, as you would say, i was noting the fatuousness of the question.


And unless you wanna try your hand at actually giving me a dollar amount, i think my point was made. Originally Posted by Doove

Bullshit.

Try to pay attention before posting again, if that's possible. You wandered off into entitlement and defense spending. That's not the subject of the thread, remember?

That's not the subject of the thread, remember? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

As near as I can tell, staying within shouting distance of the subject matter has rarely been a criteria for posting in this forum!

As near as I can tell, staying within shouting distance of the subject matter has never been a criteria for posting in this forum! Originally Posted by bigtex

Certainly not!

Around here, people continually reset a thread's transponder to squawk code 7500.

What we saw was just a forlorn attempt by Doove to deflect attention from the observation that he claimed to have given a clear answer to a fairly simple question, when it's obvious that he did no such thing.

My appetite for engaging in debate with someone who pays little attention to the subject under discussion, and is generally only interested in making snarky remarks, is quite limited.

Next contestant, please!

No, all he did was dodge it. Because he knows he would look like a fool if he admitted he can't answer it knowledgeably, in the same thread where he criticizes me (and others) for not answering the question he wants us to answer, that can't be answered knowledgeably. So instead he tried to note the fatuousness of that line of questioning. Originally Posted by Doove

I'm trying hard to figure out what this illiterate screed means.

But, I think you are saying that my post #86 above is a dodge. If that is correct, that's bullshit.

I noted the ridiculousness of setting all of your spending targets first and then trying to get income to cover it by simply raising taxes as high as necessary (if you are lucky).

You responded in post #89 with an answer that tried to distinguish between "needs" and "wants", as if anyone can agree on that, either. All that did was divert the argument again.

It doesn't matter whether something is a need or a want. If you can't raise enough cash to cover it, you're screwed. Sometimes your needs must go unmet. What if the progressives decide we have $10 trillion worth of "needs", but we can't raise more than $4.5 trillion even with a 100% rate about $200K in income. What then?

BTW, I gave you a specific number (45%) for the top marginal rate. Contrary to what you said in your dodge of a specific number, I did not pull that number out of my ass.

When you add the federal 45% to the 10-11% state income tax bite in places like NY and Connecticutt, PLUS the huge property taxes in those states, PLUS the 6-8% sales taxes they also have, you end up with a total tax bit closing in on 60%, if not actually exceeding it.

I think there is a moral argument to be made that no society should be taking that big of a chunk of someone's ordinary income. I don't give a shit if France is going after 75%. Let's see them actually collect it. They'll try, but will end up with less money than before from all the people who will work less, leave the country, or hide income.

This is the work income a doctor or lawyer makes from billable hours or a small business owner makes from running the store. Taking 60% of their income because you think you "need" it is no justification. At some point, society must do without. People with higher incomes are not the slaves of the ones with lower incomes.

If we ever needed further evidence of how full of sh*t you are, we don't need it now. You just want to toss inane statements and figures out and try to pass them off as legitimate. I know that you don't have what it takes to go below the surface of anything. I just wanted you to make it clear to anyone who hasn't already caught on. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Hey Randy4Andy, you ignorant fuck!?! You didn't cite a single source. You proffered nothing but your inane, regurgitated liberal Kool Aid swill that has no foundation in fact. The “War on Poverty” has been waged for over fifty years now and trillions of dollars have been thrown at the problem. Yet everyone of you Kool Aid sucking sots exclaim the poor are worse off today than they were thirty years ago. By your own admission your “solutions” have not worked and are not working – and what’s your fatuous answer: throw more money away. So fuck you and your expensive, lame-ass, ineffective, ill-administered “solutions”!

I agree that when people say 'return to the Clinton Rates' or say "45 percent", they do not take into account how much all of the other taxes have risen.

I suppose a good question would be, "how much should a person making $400,000 a year pay in all taxes collected by all taxing entities".

I say $400,000 because I think that is where quite a few independent and small business owners fall.

Well someone needs to come up with an answer. I see all these politicians saying "the rich need to pay a little more" and "the rich need to pay their fair share".

Perhaps a different way to phrase it...."How much out of your paycheck should go to or are you willing to give, the federal government? Half, 50% of everything you make?"

After that, then you can add on the state and local taxes. We don't have control of the federal amounts withheld, but with the state/local rates you can control that by living where they are more or less (see the exodus out of California).

What this thread has shown , IMHO. is that we all have a different view of 'fair'.

Some of us think it would have been fair for GW Bush to ask us...."How much out of your paycheck should go to or are you willing to give, the federal government to pay for these wars?"

Had he, we might not be having this conversation of how much is now fair to pay....after the fact. That is why the ladies get their money up front not many of us are willing to pay as much after the dirty deed as we were before.

If you think you gave a "clear answer", I hate to think what you feel that a fuzzy, muddled answer might look like! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sorry if nuance is over your head. I didn't answer it with a number. But i answered it. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not mine.

Policy makers are going to have to come up with specifics. You know, things like actual marginal rates and deduction limits. There's obviously no "correct answer" to the questions we challenged you to answer, but surely you must have an opinion regarding what you consider "fair."

Funny, all this complaining about whether or not i answered the question, and you keep refusing to answer my question.

If you do not want to give specifics, and only wish to offer vague generalities, fine. You should just say so or ignore the question. Claiming that you offered a substantive answer just makes you look foolish.

40%. You happy now? Geezus H Keerist. Ask me 3 months from now and i'll give you a different answer. 3 months after that, and i'll likely give you a 3rd answer. So exactly how does my saying 40% change anything? Especially when, like you guys, i just pulled that number outa my butthole.

Try to pay attention before posting again, if that's possible. You wandered off into entitlement and defense spending. That's not the subject of the thread, remember?

Ok, nevermind the fact that:

1)I mentioned them because what they are played a part in what i thought would be a fair rate. To pay the bills. And...

2)I mentioned them to point out the silliness of you getting your panties in a bunch over whether or not we come up with a number to throw out in answer to your question.

So yeah, my bringing them up is relevant. If you were paying attention to the full conversation, you'd know that.

And since i now did, perhaps you can give me an answer about what you think we should spend. And until you do, i'll continue to mock you for not answering it. Because i can act just as stupid as you guys can. I'm sure you know this.

I'm trying hard to figure out what this illiterate screed means. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Do you have any idea what "illiterate" means?

But, I think you are saying that my post #86 above is a dodge. If that is correct, that's bullshit.

Ok, if you didn't dodge the question, i failed to catch it. So please point me to where you answered it.

I noted the ridiculousness of setting all of your spending targets first and then trying to get income to cover it by simply raising taxes as high as necessary (if you are lucky).

Did you answer the question? Yes, or no?

You responded in post #89 with an answer that tried to distinguish between "needs" and "wants", as if anyone can agree on that, either. All that did was divert the argument again.

You used an analogy. I responded with an analogy of my own that i thought was more on-point than your analogy. So if anyone diverted anything, it was you.

It doesn't matter whether something is a need or a want. If you can't raise enough cash to cover it, you're screwed. Sometimes your needs must go unmet.

And i'll "divert" the argument again by responding to your same off-point analogy by reiterating my analogy. If we can't raise the cash, yeah, we're screwed. If we only choose not to raise the cash, then we're just stupid. Choosing not to raise the cash is a want.

What if the progressives decide we have $10 trillion worth of "needs", but we can't raise more than $4.5 trillion even with a 100% rate about $200K in income. What then?

Oh brother. And what if progressives decide we should have $3 Trillion worth of needs, and we could, if we wanted to, raise $5 Trillion in revenues. But we decide we only want to raise $2 Trillion in revenue. What then?

If we have $3 Trillion in needs, then a fair tax rate is what we need to raise $3 Trillion. If we have $5 trillion in needs, then a fair tax rate is what's needed to raise $5 trillion. And if we have $2.2 trillion in needs, then a fair rate is what's needed to raise $2.2 trillion.

I know you and CM are unable to grasp that concept, but i think smart people can figure it out.

What we saw was just a forlorn attempt by Doove to deflect attention from the observation that he claimed to have given a clear answer to a fairly simple question, when it's obvious that he did no such thing.

My appetite for engaging in debate with someone who pays little attention to the subject under discussion, and is generally only interested in making snarky remarks, is quite limited.

Next contestant, please! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Uh huh.

We can always tell when you don't have a response - you start resorting to the "you're wrong because i say so" arguments. You rely on insisting someone else is using "non-sequiturs", making comments that aren't germane to the topic, and accuse us of not answering the question, blah blah blah. Oh, and you bitch about snarky comments. Over and over and over and over and over again.

Do you have any idea what "illiterate" means? Originally Posted by Doove

il·lit·er·ate [ih-lit-er-it]adjective
1. unable to read and write: an illiterate group.

2. having or demonstrating very little or no education.

3. showing lack of culture, especially in language and literature.

4. displaying a marked lack of knowledge in a particular field: He is musically illiterate.

Re-read the gibberish you wrote and focus on definition 2 and possibly 4.

Ok, if you didn't dodge the question, i failed to catch it. So please point me to where you answered it.

Did you answer the question? Yes, or no?

You used an analogy. I responded with an analogy of my own that i thought was more on-point than your analogy. So if anyone diverted anything, it was you. Originally Posted by Doove

Your "question", if you can call it that, was to pick a dollar amount for what the Medicaid, medicare, SS and other entitlements should be. You asked for "a number on exactly what the medicare and medicaid and welfare system budgets, as well as the budget of all socialprograms should be..."

I responded by saying that's not how you budget. FIRST, you figure out your revenue, THEN you make your spending choices.

That is an altogether common sense answer to the false premise you set up.

We are $14 trillion in debt because the government has been doing what you suggest.

Then you came back with a smoke screen about the differences between our needs and our wants. Another false premise. There are no absolute "needs". Everything is a "want" to one degree or another.

You can always tell people to retire later. You can always means test their benefits. You can always refuse payment of certain types of medical treatments after a certain age and let people pay for it out of their own pocket if they insist on having it. You can always cancel the extra aircraft carriers and new jets and reduce some divisions. You can always layoff federal employees and reduce their benefits packages.

These are unpopular things, but if you don't make hard choices you end up $14 trillion in debt.

And i'll "divert" the argument again by responding to your same off-point analogy by reiterating my analogy. If we can't raise the cash, yeah, we're screwed. If we only choose not to raise the cash, then we're just stupid. Choosing not to raise the cash is a want.

Oh brother. And what if progressives decide we should have $3 Trillion worth of needs, and we could, if we wanted to, raise $5 Trillion in revenues. But we decide we only want to raise $2 Trillion in revenue. What then?

If we have $3 Trillion in needs, then a fair tax rate is what we need to raise $3 Trillion. If we have $5 trillion in needs, then a fair tax rate is what's needed to raise $5 trillion. And if we have $2.2 trillion in needs, then a fair rate is what's needed to raise $2.2 trillion. Originally Posted by Doove

I asked you a question about what happens if we define our needs in excess of our revenue and you respond with 4 examples of our revenue meeting or exceeding our needs. Divert much?

At least you made a passing reference to us being "screwed" if we can't raise the cash, but what exactly does "screwed" mean?

Does that mean we continue to borrow to meet our needs and go deeper in debt?

Or do you finally accept that we have to cut spending, including entitlements? And if you can cut entitlements, were they ever really "needs" in the first place?

We can always tell when you don't have a response - you start resorting to the "you're wrong because i say so" arguments. You rely on insisting someone else is using "non-sequiturs", making comments that aren't germane to the topic, and accuse us of not answering the question, blah blah blah. Oh, and you bitch about snarky comments. Over and over and over and over and over again. Originally Posted by Doove

Are you talking about Captain Midnight or yourself? Because that little bit describes most of your responses in this thread.