What's a "fair share"?

Usually, a person asks a question to get the opinion of some others, not so he could give his own. BTW, his question was in post #1.

 

Not only a question that he will accept no answer to but a question he himself will not answer. And he thinks that he is clever? Too funny and sad.

 

Isn't it kinda absurd for me to answer for the left wingers? Afterall, it's a point you guys are making not me.
What's your answer there, clembo? moen is too scared to answer but maybe you will?

 

Clembo? moen? Bueller?

 

Who said you should respond for the left wingers David? As a right winger do YOU have an opinion? If not you started an absurd post. Pretty much the norm for you in my opinion.

Using your logic (or total lack thereof) I should not respond either. I don't consider myself to be a left winger these days. I'm more of a moderate and that leans toward center.

"You guys". Brilliant blanket statement there. If it's "you guys" that are making a point why did you start a thread about it? That would seem rather pointless in itself.

Sure I will David and would love to see you do so as well. After all, it's not a real discussion unless there are different answers and viewpoints is it? Naysaying and finger pointing get us nowhere. That's basically where we are as a country. A lot like this forum.

The answer is nobody knows. If you DO know please share with the class.

What I would like to see won't happen most likely and that's due to the different classes, loopholes, laws etc.

To me a flat tax rate across the board would be a "potential" solution. However determining the rate of taxation would be a total nightmare under our present system.
In order to even come close we'd have to simplify the system. This would mean less government. Wow! I sound like a teapartier here not some "left winger".
Of course with less government you'd have more unemployed. This is something the teapartiers fail to address. Where will they find work and pay the flat rate taxes?

Many wouldn't I surmise so what to do about them? Do they get unemployment or is it fend for yourselves?
This brings me to another point. What about the poor and truly unemployed that aren't just a "bunch of lazy bums" that don't want to work? Do we kick them to the side and let them starve because they can't pay a flat rate and manage to feed, clothe and house themselves?

I could go on for hours David and you know it.

I had the balls to "answer" the question. Does anyone else here have the balls to answer the question?

Or are you scared.

 

He has no answer. He just plays this silly game because he thinks it proves something. I have answered directly and it still isn't good enough because then he can't play the game. It's about the game not any answer. The immaturity is just astounding or typical in his case.

Watch this. I say the wealthiest Americans should pay 50% income taxes! PERIOD!

 

Well, uh, I guess you did.DUH!
I can assure you, if I were running around demanding someone pay their "fair share" (or supporting those who do talk about it) I would definitely be able and willing toanswer the most basic question as to what that "fair share" is.

 

Just curious, but is that FEDERAL income tax alone or does that include the state and city income taxes?

 

Just Federal income tax. State income taxes are already tiny.

 

I sort of agree with your 50% tax rate, but I believe you ought to be able to keep at least 50 per cent of what you earn - exclusive of all income taxes. So let's see. State income tax rates go to 11% and the highest city tax rate I found was 4%. And that leaves 35% for the federal government. Man, that looks familiar, doesn't it? BTW, that does not even include the sales tax, property tax, use tax, etc.

And just to be sure, I do not believe that anyone's taxes should be raised until the economy starts functioning some approximation of normally.

 

At what income level should one begin paying a 50% tax rate? And is that only on income or does that include wealth too?

 

How about tying it to a multiple of the poverty line? Sayyyy... if your income is at 20 times the poverty line or more you pay a 50% rate.

 

Your wealth is your wealth and nobody should tax you on it and I don't believe that you are taxed on your wealth, just your income. I'm not as wedded to when someone should start paying the 50% income tax but I guess it could be a million, two million, three million but I think one million is a good starting place but don't really care much.

What I do know from history is that when people/companies aren't allowed to pay salaries 3 to 4 hundred times the rate of their employees to their upper management because the government taxes that type of income at such an onerous rate that it doesn't pay, they tend to reinvest their profits back into their businesses. The business grows instead of just making a handful of people at the top super wealthy and everyone else super poor. This model has worked for this country and spurred growth for decades until Reagan slashed tax rates and began the free-for-all money grab. You might believe that it comes down to government telling people what they can and cannot earn but there is a more fundamental question that needs asking. Is this country here for the benefit of the very few at the top of the income ladder or is this country here for the benefit of all, perhaps not equally, but more equitably anyway. What makes you a lapdog the super wealthy anyway? Is it ideology? You must like the direction this country has been headed for the last 30 years because you are defending the mechanisms that got us here for whatever reason and again, Ideology!? Really?

 

Nice answer Moen but you got sucked in here.

David "answered" a question with a question as always. You actually answered. Now it's David's turn but it won't happen.

 

I find that I post for the general reader and not so much for the specific poster. The specific poster is certainly the mechanism I use but I like to think that I am really speaking to the general audience more than the individual. I think most of what I write goes completely over his head or is blocked from his conscious memory by an ideological wall that can't be penetrated by anyone much less someone he loathes. I guess what I am saying is that I don’t put a lot of stock in what David thinks about what I post. I post whatever I want anyway.

 

Let's see David said this.

Then I said this and answered the question.

Now to me I'm asking for his answer as a right winger. I think the second sentence sums that up. Then I get this response to my question.

Now, can ANYONE tell me here how I told David he should respond for the left wingers. Seriously ANYONE and that includes you David. I just laid it all out. At what point can you specifically tell me, or anyone, that I told you to respond for the left wing here. YOU CAN'T because it never happened except perhaps in your mind.
Sounded good maybe. Twist it, avoid it but in the end a bunch of BS that you cooked up in your mind.

You just won't answer a question basically. Rlm even defended you a bit here.

I have no problem with that as I have some respect for rlm He even offered some of his opinion NOT as a left winger I would presume.

Moen had this to say even though he's too scared to answer.

Looks like an answer to me.

How about this one?

Nice ANSWER rlm. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

Thanks for the input IQ. Something that should always be addressed.

And now David's responses.

I did. As did Moen, rlm and IQ.

No. You wouldn't. Are you scared to offer your opinion?

For sure. A little help from folks such as yourself might help.
Nobody respects a finger pointing coward.

Seems a few have had the balls while others just run away a twistin'.
Must be scared.

 

I would expect a clear and concise answer any moment now.
Or probably not either of them.

 

moen, I don't know what cause this attack on you from clembo (I thought that was my job here).

 

Remember this the next time you bring up that tax argument about Warren Buffet & his secretary paying different tax rates.

 

You cut the sentence off. Don't you RW'ers ever get tired of misrepresenting someone else's words Mr David Breitbart? This type of thing really kills your credibility. The entire sentence was...

Your wealth is your wealth and nobody should tax you on it and I don't believe that you are taxed on your wealth, just your income.