"Fair Share"?

let the tax cuts sunset as they were designed to do so the country can return to the economic blight it was dealing with pre Bush.

eos

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? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Indeed, I noticed that as well.

I'll play as well, 45% is a little high. Almost half of a persons income going to the federal government is too much. The top rate is currently 35% and I think 38% is probably the maximum. Also add another tier that raises the bogey to above $500K for that top rate. Thats should easily satisfy those that say "the rich need to pay a little more" and like Doove says, won't put a huge crimp in the rich folks lifestyle.

Doove Sir, there is mine.....whats your number?

Doove hasn't learned numbers yet.

My idea is end the income tax. All it promotes is class envy.

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

Exactly.

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? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Though I agree with your numbers I think the orginial question is a trick one.

It would be like asking what is the max you would pay on a SUV but you have bought a Lamborghini. The question does not address the problem. IMHO

Should we not pay for the actual car we buy? We need to address what we can actually afford. Which at those % is a Ford SUV, not a Lamborghini. The question then becomes "What do we do with the Lamborghini?"

Though I agree with your numbers I think the orginial question is a trick one.

It would be like asking what is the max you would pay on a SUV but you have bought a Lamborghini. The question does not address the problem. IMHO

Should we not pay for the actual car we buy? We need to address what we can actually afford. Which at those % is a Ford SUV, not a Lamborghini. The question then becomes "What do we do with the Lamborghini?" Originally Posted by WTF

That's talking in circles. There's no trick question involved. You've got your budget approach backward. You should run it the same way you run your home budget. You set the tax rates, see what money comes in, and then spend only that. If you overspend your salary, you don't get to say, "Make my neighbor pay for my car."

You don't say "OOPS! We spent too much. Gotta raise the rates on the top earners".

And I have been ignoring the nonsensical premise that you have raised in this other threads. You have a real hard-on for the defense budget being something only the rich should have to pay for. As if only the rich benefit from it.

I think the DoD should be cut to about 60% of its current level and ALL of the savings should go to deficit reduction and paying down the national debt. NOT A PENNY should go to more entitlements.

I know you hold the cynical view that rich people want war because they want to get richer by stealing the resources of other countries. That's BS. We fought at least 3 wards in the last 60 years in countries that have little if any national resources: Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Sometimes we fought in countries that had plenty of resources and sometimes we fought in countries that sparse resources. We had troops killed in Grenada, Beirut and Somalia for no discernible economic reason. I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

We spent a great deal of blood and treasure in the last century fighting against totalitarian ideologies - fascism, communism, and Islamic fundamentalism. You can argue that we spent TOO much money fighting those ideologies, but that is different that arguing that we only fought those wars to make some people rich. That's cynicism masquerading as intellect.

I distinctly remember the period immediately after 9/11. Virtually everyone from every income level wanted to punish the Afghanistan and destroy both the Taliban and al Queda. Saying otherwise is just denial of reality.

Contrary to conspiratorial belief, the rich don't want war more than others. For starters, they are smarter and better educated that the average person and know the true cost of war.

The rich and the educated know It is ALWAYS cheaper and easier to simply buy what you want - even from totalitarian regimes - than to invade to take it. That is the rational and intelligent choice - if all you are considering is economic benefit.

For years prior to invading Iraq, the rest of the world had embargoed Iraq's oil. This had the effect of reducing world supply and raising oil prices. If all we cared about was getting cheap energy, all we had to do was lift the embargo. Saddam was practically begging to sell it. Iraq's oil would have flooded the market, prices would have dropped and we would have had cheaper energy and greater economic growth - all without spilling a drop of blood or spending a dime for bullets.

The problem with that approach was the asshole who would be getting our money. Saddam would make billions and any money he received was never put to good use, primarily purchasing weapons that might be used against us. So, we maintained a costly embargo in the belief that our short-term losses due to higher oil prices would be more than offset by the long-term losses we would avoid if we could cripple Saddam Hussein's ambitions. We may have been wrong in that estimate, but that is a different argument.

Right now we are repeating the same tactic (mistake?) with Iran. We have imposed embargoes and steep economic sanctions on Iran. If we want Iran's oil, all we have to do is buy it. If the rest of the world went along with lifting the embargo, world supplies would increase and oil prices would decline or at least not increase as fast. We do not need to spend $500 billion and lose thousands of lives to get that oil by means of invasion.

The problem with lifting the embargo is that Iran will surely use its oil revenue to obtain nuclear weapons and to supply rockets and other weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. So, we maintain economic sanctions to avoid that result, even if it makes oil more expensive in the short term.

So, no, the rich don't only benefit from the defense budget, we all do. I think we should spend less on it, but no matter the amount, we all still benefit from it.

And you don't treat the federal budget like you are splitting up a check in a restaurant. You don't get to say "I only had an appetizer and one drink. I shouldn't pay have to pay an equal split" when you are paying for the federal budget.

We provide for the COMMON defense, not individual defenses.

You don't say, "I don't need to be defended, so I don't have to pay for the DoD".

You don't say, "I don't drive because I live in NY and take mass transit, so I don't have to pay for the Interstate highway system."

You don't say, "I'm wealthy enough to pay for my own medical benefits, so I don't have to pay Medicare taxes."

It doesn't work that way, nor should it. You can vote for representatives that will reduce overall spending on a budget item, but you don't get to claim that other people should pay for the parts you don't think you use.

That's talking in circles. There's no trick question involved. You've got your budget approach backward. You should run it the same way you run your home budget. You set the tax rates, see what money comes in, and then spend only that. If you overspend your salary, you don't get to say, "Make my neighbor pay for my car."

You don't say "OOPS! We spent too much. Gotta raise the rates on the top earners".

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You are the one talking in circles. If we overspend and the rich have gotten wealthy because we did not budget enough, they are the ones that should pay. The middle class and poor are the ones with shrinking income, not the rich.

The rich have the power to influnce politicians, they are the ones buying elections until their BS no longer works on the masses.

You can not have it both way, you can not cut taxes and then bitch about the deficit. Cutting taxes only produces more revenue when they are to high, when they get to low you will have smaller tax revenue. That has been what is wrong with people that think cutting taxes is the only solution. They do not understand that point. They think because you cut taxes because they were to high and tax revenue increased that will work again and again and again. The Laffer Curve is the most misunderstood thing folks on the right think they understand.

btw Medicare spending needs to be brought under control too, not just Defense. I have said so many times.

You are the one talking in circles. If we overspend and the rich have gotten wealthy because we did not budget enough, they are the ones that should pay. The middle class and poor are the ones with shrinking income, not the rich.

The rich have the power to influence politicians, they are the ones buying elections until their BS no longer works on the masses.

You can not have it both way, you can not cut taxes and then bitch about the deficit. Cutting taxes only produces more revenue when they are to high, when they get to low you will have smaller tax revenue. That has been what is wrong with people that think cutting taxes is the only solution. They do not understand that point. They think because you cut taxes because they were to high and tax revenue increased that will work again and again and again. The Laffer Curve is the most misunderstood thing folks on the right think they understand.

btw Medicare spending needs to be brought under control too, not just Defense. I have said so many times. Originally Posted by WTF

The rich did not get wealthy because we did not budget enough or because the federal government overspent. The rich got rich because they are selling something that people want to buy - whether it is oil, microprocessors, software, real estate, or investment funds. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the Sam Walton did not make billions because the federal government spend $500 billion more that it brought in. They made billions because people buy their shit more often that they buy their competitors shit.

And I never said to cut taxes. Don't put words in my mouth. I am not trying to have it both ways. There is no doubt in my mind that taxes MUST go - on everybody, but mostly on the rich.

It is the spending that must be controlled. And by controlled I mean reduced.

But nobody wants to have their entitlements cut or their federal funding reduced. They want other peoples shit cut.

And they delude themselves that you can just take more from others above you and the budget will balance.

Like the old saying goes, "sooner or later you run out of other peoples money."

You can raise taxes only to a point. After that, the incentive to work and/or invest goes down with each increase in the tax rate. There are delusional people that believe that if you raise taxes to say, 90% on income over some amount, say $5 million per year, that you will actually get all 90% of that revenue because the revenue will stay at the same level it was when the tax rate was only 20%.

High-income people know when they are getting soaked and they know when they have reached a point of diminishing returns. There is no point working 60 hours per week when it only brings you 10% more revenue than when you work 40 hours per week.

The French are going to raise the top rate to 75%. I can't wait until they realize it only brought in about 10% of what they thought it would and the whole plan blows up in their socialist faces.

Governing is about making choices - especially difficult choices. At some point, you have to implement austerity - at least in a mature political environment. But no one in DC is willing to tell the boomers and others that they can't have low taxes and big entitlements. No one wants to cut back on the size of the public sector or the ridiculous benefits dished out to them.

The only people that give a fuck about keeping the poor, poor is politicians. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

And people who shop at Walmart.

It is interesting that no matter HOW many times Chica Chaser asked the question, NOT A SINGLE PROGRESSIVE has yet put down a number. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Because it's a dumb question with no clear answer. As WTF has pointed out, a good starting point would be "what we need to pay the bills". But that needs to be balanced by the level of harm, if any, done to the economy as a whole based on any particular rate. Which also needs to be balanced by what i mentioned in my previous point, which is the threshold of damage done to the individual being taxed. So there is no number that anyone, frankly, can give. All we can do is start with the current rate, and determine if it can/needs to go up, or can/needs to go down. Right now, my belief is that it can and needs to go up. If it goes up beyond a level that proves beneficial, we can then revisit the issue and lower it.

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 Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

But since you want to play the "pin down a number" game, let's play. I'll give you a number that i believe is fair just based on nothing more than what's "fair" given my interpretation of how the economy works, if you give me a number on exactly what the medicare and medicaid and welfare system budgets, as well as the budget of all social programs should be....based on your statement above. What's fair?

High-income people know when they are getting soaked and they know when they have reached a point of diminishing returns. There is no point working 60 hours per week when it only brings you 10% more revenue than when you work 40 hours per week. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Ok, so you're saying nobody will want to work 60 hrs/wk for $1.1M if they can work 40 hrs/wk for $1.0M. Fine. Then someone would need to be hired to fill the 20 hr gap.

Where's the problem?

Because it's a dumb question with no clear answer. As WTF has pointed out, a good starting point would be "what we need to pay the bills".

... if you give me a number on exactly what the medicare and medicaid and welfare system budgets, as well as the budget of all social programs should be....based on your statement above. What's fair? Originally Posted by Doove

Both of these statements reflect the fundamental problem of progressives.

FIRST you set your spending and THEN you determine what your income must be.

It that the way your run you family finances? Do you determine your spending first based on all the goodies you want to have and then figure how your are going to pay for it?

Or do you first figure out what your income is going to be and THEN try to hold your spending to be at or below your income level?

We all know its the second choice. What makes the government any different?

We run deficits every year because no one in DC is brave enough to make hard spending choices and then explain them to the "masses". So we promise everything to everybody and then keep our fingers crossed and hope the revenue magically appears to match our spending promises.

Ok, so you're saying nobody will want to work 60 hrs/wk for $1.1M if they can work 40 hrs/wk for $1.0M. Fine. Then someone would need to be hired to fill the 20 hr gap.

Where's the problem? Originally Posted by Doove

You can't just fill the gap.

If a business owner decides to cut back on store hours and maybe let an employee go, there is nothing to fill. There is simply less worked performed and income produced. And consumers can't jsut go to another store that will pick up the slack - because the other stores will be working less for the same reason. If lots of store owners do that, tax revenues fall.

If a doctor works less hours per week, you can't snap your fingers and have another doctor magically appear to fill the gap. They are in limited supply and it takes years to train new ones. If lots of doctors see less patients, the demand simply goes unmet. You cannot force them to work.

The rich did not get wealthy because we did not budget enough or because the federal government overspent. The rich got rich because they are selling something that people want to buy - whether it is oil, microprocessors, software, real estate, or investment funds. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the Sam Walton did not make billions because the federal government spend $500 billion more that it brought in. They made billions because people buy their shit more often that they buy their competitors shit.

And I never said to cut taxes. Don't put words in my mouth. I am not trying to have it both ways. There is no doubt in my mind that taxes MUST go - on everybody, but mostly on the rich.

It is the spending that must be controlled. And by controlled I mean reduced.

But nobody wants to have their entitlements cut or their federal funding reduced. They want other peoples shit cut.

And they delude themselves that you can just take more from others above you and the budget will balance.

Like the old saying goes, "sooner or later you run out of other peoples money."

You can raise taxes only to a point. After that, the incentive to work and/or invest goes down with each increase in the tax rate. There are delusional people that believe that if you raise taxes to say, 90% on income over some amount, say $5 million per year, that you will actually get all 90% of that revenue because the revenue will stay at the same level it was when the tax rate was only 20%.

High-income people know when they are getting soaked and they know when they have reached a point of diminishing returns. There is no point working 60 hours per week when it only brings you 10% more revenue than when you work 40 hours per week.

The French are going to raise the top rate to 75%. I can't wait until they realize it only brought in about 10% of what they thought it would and the whole plan blows up in their socialist faces.

Governing is about making choices - especially difficult choices. At some point, you have to implement austerity - at least in a mature political environment. But no one in DC is willing to tell the boomers and others that they can't have low taxes and big entitlements. No one wants to cut back on the size of the public sector or the ridiculous benefits dished out to them. Originally Posted by ExNYer

It appears we are basically saying the same thing.....as much as you might hate to admit it!

No we have to get our medical spending under control. SS is fine, the two drivers of this debt crisis are Defense and Medicare. My point is that we actually have paid for Medicare and not Defense. Though Medicare cost are a huge problem. Problem is, if you try and limit it, people scream "Death Panals!" , Defense is not much different if you try and cut that spending.

My point is that it is not just the poor that are driving this train wreck. We are a nation that has gotten used to spending above our means.

Not sure if either you or I can fix it on a hooker board! Originally Posted by WTF

FIRST you set your spending and THEN you determine what your income must be. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Close with the analogy, but not quite.

It that the way your run you family finances? Do you determine your spending first based on all the goodies you want to have and then figure how your are going to pay for it?

What i do at home is make sure my needs are paid for, and then i worry about my wants.

The country has specific needs that should/need to be met. We can argue what rises to that level and what doesn't. That's a fair argument.

But what the country wants is low taxes.

Our problem is we put too much emphasis on our wants, while neglecting our needs.

You can't just fill the gap. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Sure ya can.

If a business owner decides to cut back on store hours and maybe let an employee go, there is nothing to fill. There is simply less worked performed and income produced.

Worst case scenario. It's just as likely the business owner will hire someone to cover the hours she doesn't want to work. Particularly where not doing so will accomplish nothing but shooting herself in the foot given the lost income.

And consumers can't jsut go to another store that will pick up the slack - because the other stores will be working less for the same reason. If lots of store owners do that, tax revenues fall.

Or we get more stores.