"Fair Share"?

You get jobs from poor and middle class people buying things from the rich. Think Wal Mart. The problem becomes when income inequity becomes to large, the poor and middle class can not affort to buy shit. That is why the low and high end retailers are doing ok. We have a huge income gap. Google Gini Originally Posted by WTF

Using the Wal Mart example, Yeah they don't pay for shit (think I remember reading the avg wage was $8.85/hr), they treat their employees like shit and everyone knows it. And on any given day I imagine they receive thousands of employment applications, likely from the "poor". And yet, knowing all that, people still line up everyday to work there.

Every person that they hire for any position across the company get their job from "the rich", Waltons and the WM shareholders.

There will always be a class system in the country, and always has been. The government simply cannot collect and redistribute enough wealth to make everyone even, without the entire system breaking down at least.

You obviously have no clue as to what my point even is, which leads me to believe that you're entirely ignorant as to how the world works, and how you benefit from people making barely minimum wage.

Every time you go to Walmart, or the grocery store, the gas station or to any common restaurant - double the wages of everyone who works there, as well as everyone along the supply chain who worked to deliver to you the products you buy, and ask yourself how much more it would cost you.

People like you benefit from the existence of poor people, and then you spit on them by bitching about how "they don't pay taxes". Or bitching about how your taxes go towards their food stamps, or their heating bill, or their health care.

Cry me a freakin' river. Originally Posted by Doove

Yep, I'm totally ignorant. No clue how the world works.
People "like me" huh? Perhaps you are the one who has no clue about me or where I am and have been. I have no problem with my tax money going towards those that are truly in need. I don't believe I have ever said otherwise.

Lets throw the questions over to you then

So in your opinion, what's the number that IS their fair share?
At what number does it become fair? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of those rich folks incomes?
Should capital gains income be taxed at the exact sames rates as earned income is? Its all income after-all right?

A tax is not "regressive" if we all pay the same dollars. Because it is expressed as a percentage means little to nothing.
When I was struggling, I did not buy what I could not afford, including tax. If the prole cannot afford the tax on a Tahoe, he should by something more in line with what he can afford. I rode a bicycle for a long time before I bought a 300 dollar car. Let me see, tax on a 300 dollar car is a lot less than tax on a new Escalade. This is how you make those sorts of taxes "fair". Of course we are talking about a luxury item and not a necessity oflife. I would call that voluntary. It is sort of like driving on a toll road; you really do not have to drive on it and if you choose to do so you pay the same as everyone else.

I suppose you could harp on entitlement taxes and how they are regressive, even though the employer pays the same for everybody and we are all entitled to the same as we put in when we are eligible to get it out. Wait, that is unless you make over a certain amount then they penalize you.That sounds sort of regressive to me. I guess it is sort of like losing the deductions that everybody gets if you make more than x amount or having those deductions reduced.

Now why did Doove's mother let him have the internet back.
Question How manyh people work or are employed by a poor person?
Every now and then one of the workers decides that the man is getting rich off of his ass. So he decides to go into business for himself so he can work 5 or 6 hours a day, play golf two or three times a week, and make a shit load of money. It usually doesn't take long to find out they are working 13 or 14 hours a day for wages and never knew or understood all of the bureaucracy that he would have to deal with. Most fail because they fail to work the hours needed to survive, take a paycheck before the bills are paid and end up broke and in debt to their ass.They did not understand that they needed to have some capital to put at risk to get them through the hard times. Miss a payment to the IRS or two and before you know it he has become a common criminal. The vast majority end up back at work for somebody else. A very small few last a couple of years. One or two will actually make a thriving business, understanding they are now owned by it.

The only people that give a fuck about keeping the poor, poor is politicians.

If there is going to be a burden, shouldn't we all share in the load? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I have already said that all Bush tax cuts should expire except for the poor. Originally Posted by WTF

+1

Using the Wal Mart example, Yeah they don't pay for shit (think I remember reading the avg wage was $8.85/hr), they treat their employees like shit and everyone knows it. And on any given day I imagine they receive thousands of employment applications, likely from the "poor". And yet, knowing all that, people still line up everyday to work there.

Every person that they hire for any position across the company get their job from "the rich", Waltons and the WM shareholders.

There will always be a class system in the country, and always has been. The government simply cannot collect and redistribute enough wealth to make everyone even, without the entire system breaking down at least. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Yes but it did not used to be so wide. When it gets to be this huge gap with no middle class you wind up with a Banana Republic or this Crony Cap shit we have now. There are many reasons for it not all related to taxes. We are in a global market. It was inevitable that our wages would go down in this country and poorer nations wages would go up, that benefits the wealthy. It is called cheap labor. There is really nothing anyone can do about it now, the genie is out of the bottle and sucking at globalizations tit. You have to be fast and nimble in this new world economy. That is why at the end of the day, it does not really matter who is elected long term. We all die in the end!

The government simply cannot collect and redistribute enough wealth to make everyone even, without the entire system breaking down at least. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Straw man.

Lets throw the questions over to you then Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

How about you tell us what you think is fair? 25%? 15%? 2%?

I don't see it as what rate is "fair", i see it as who can pay how much without significantly infringing on their lifestyle. To that end, i'm fully convinced that the rich can afford to pay more without being harmed in any way. Much more. I am sympathetic, however, to the argument that taxes on someone who earns $200,000/yr shouldn't necessarily be increased by the same amount as they are for someone who makes $2,000,000/yr.

How about you tell us what you think is fair? 25%? 15%? 2%?

I don't see it as what rate is "fair", i see it as who can pay how much without significantly infringing on their lifestyle. To that end, i'm fully convinced that the rich can afford to pay more without being harmed in any way. Much more. I am sympathetic, however, to the argument that taxes on someone who earns $200,000/yr shouldn't necessarily be increased by the same amount as they are for someone who makes $2,000,000/yr. Originally Posted by Doove

+1

Look like a one side debate.

They want a company who does well or who makes any profits to pay more of that to the goverment so they can give it to the ones that don't want to work. Simple.

The takers are out numbering the givers right now.

They want a company who does well or who makes any profits to pay more of that to the goverment so they can give it to the ones that don't want to work. Simple.

The takers are out numbering the givers right now. Originally Posted by Gotyour6

Sit your ass at home and collect unemployment. Let the unemployed person take your job, I bet he/she would not mind paying a little more in tax for your job.

So, we can summarize the liberal responses to this thread as follows: Despite their continued, repeated use of the term "fair share", it is NOT about fairness, but rather it is about "he's got more candy than I do and THAT'S NOT FAIR!!! I want his candy!!!".

WTF you are just too funny. Ever hear the word "fungible"? Tex, your chart is worthless except on a hooker board to impress the unknowledgeable. Our GDP is so much higher than Denmarks (and so is Texas's GDP) and we do have the job whether we want it or not of being the world policeman.

As for my demonstration of how Obama screwed some of us with the payroll tax cut (I raised my 401K contributions the same amount), I don't see anyone arguing that I'm wrong. Sorry WTF, your comments don't rise to the level of an argument.

As for my demonstration of how Obama screwed some of us with the payroll tax cut (I raised my 401K contributions the same amount), I don't see anyone arguing that I'm wrong. Sorry WTF, your comments don't rise to the level of an argument. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I was a link showing the actual law that shows you are /were lying or just do not know WTF you are talling abpout. I post actual facts and you post your beliefs. Typicial Tea Nut. The polls are wrong Mitt will win in a landslide!
http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/...g-For-2011.htm

To prevent Social Security from losing tax revenue, Congress mandated that revenues be transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust funds to make up for the tax reduction. This is provided for in section 601 of the Tax Relief Act, which reads in part, "There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."

WTF you are just too funny. Ever hear the word "fungible"? Tex, your chart is worthless except on a hooker board to impress the unknowledgeable. Our GDP is so much higher than Denmarks (and so is Texas's GDP) and we do have the job whether we want it or not of being the world policeman.

. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The point is we can not afford it anymore. Not at the present tax rate. But you want that tax money transfered from average middle class tax payers to large Defense contractors. The joke is on you.

So, we can summarize the liberal responses to this thread as follows: Despite their continued, repeated use of the term "fair share", it is NOT about fairness, but rather it is about "he's got more candy than I do and THAT'S NOT FAIR!!! I want his candy!!!". Originally Posted by Sidewinder

No my response has been , "Fair" is the amount it will take to pay our bills, most of which derive from Defense spending and Homeland security and all the other related shit.

So if we have borrowed 10 trillion dollars for Defense spending that we did not tax the rich and middle class for, 'fair' is the amount it will take to pay for those toys and the interest incurred.
IMHO of course.

You may think it fair that the rich have lower taxes and we default on our debt.

How about you tell us what you think is fair? 25%? 15%? 2%? Originally Posted by Doove

It is interesting that no matter HOW many times Chica Chaser asked the question, NOT A SINGLE PROGRESSIVE has yet put down a number. That says a lot.

Like the rest of the progressive, Doove has refused to state a number. Instead, he turns the question around and demands the conservatives state a number.

OK. I'll play. The federal income tax rate should never go higher than a 45% maximum. PERIOD. Eliminate all of the deductions you wish, but the top rate stays there. And the percentage for SS and Medicare should be uniform for everyone and should be capped at the first $300K in income.

There's my number, Doove. What is your maximum number?

It is interesting that no matter HOW many times Chica Chaser asked the question, NOT A SINGLE PROGRESSIVE has yet put down a number. That says a lot.

Like the rest of the progressive, Doove has refused to state a number. Instead, he turns the question around and demands the conservatives state a number.

There's my number, Doove. What is your maximum number? Originally Posted by ExNYer

+1 Point of fact!!!