Trump

[kaz]

Aug 19, 2018 6:46:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 19, 2018 0:20:40 GMT -5 kaz said:

All illustrate how a society ticks. You want to stick with tax rates, fine. They are part of the quilt. If cutting tax rates for corporations and the rich has less benefit to society than not cutting them, why do it?

Tax rates were cut for EVERYONE, not just corporations and the rich. I thought you guys were all about fairness. Here's fairness - pick a number - 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever. EVERYBODY pays the same rate. THAT would be fair.

[Deleted]

I think the point is that left has no idea what "their fair share" really is. So what is it? The top 1% pay a 90% tax rate? I honestly don't believe the left will ever settle for or be satisfied with anything. Give them what they ask for and it's on to the next notch higher, change the rules, move the goal posts.

[Walter]

Aug 19, 2018 8:52:53 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 19, 2018 6:46:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

Tax rates were cut for EVERYONE, not just corporations and the rich. I thought you guys were all about fairness. Here's fairness - pick a number - 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever. EVERYBODY pays the same rate. THAT would be fair.

Clearly you aren't following.
I think we've established that fairness is NOT what this is about. Go back and review the eminent domain segment of this discussion. Fair ain't what it's about.
This is about maximizing the bang for the buck to get the most societal good.
If taxing the top 1% at a 99% rate generated the most good in society and even the top 1% grudgingly went along because they were still making money, so be it. That's the number. If taxing the rich at 1% generates the most good, then 1% it is.

[Deleted]

Aug 19, 2018 17:31:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 19, 2018 8:52:53 GMT -5 kaz said:

Clearly you aren't following.
I think we've established that fairness is NOT what this is about. Go back and review the eminent domain segment of this discussion. Fair ain't what it's about.
This is about maximizing the bang for the buck to get the most societal good.
If taxing the top 1% at a 99% rate generated the most good in society and even the top 1% grudgingly went along because they were still making money, so be it. That's the number. If taxing the rich at 1% generates the most good, then 1% it is.

Talk about a squirrelly answer... What is their fair share? Any idea, or just the usual empty ideology?

[bgovolfan]

Aug 19, 2018 19:17:36 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Aug 19, 2018 17:31:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

Talk about a squirrelly answer... What is their fair share? Any idea, or just the usual empty ideology?

That question has been asked 1000's of times....but NEVER answered

Bg(I think it's because they are ashamed to admit that they want it all)VolFan

[arkon]

Aug 19, 2018 8:52:53 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 19, 2018 6:46:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

Tax rates were cut for EVERYONE, not just corporations and the rich. I thought you guys were all about fairness. Here's fairness - pick a number - 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever. EVERYBODY pays the same rate. THAT would be fair.

Let's go with a 20% rate for EVERYBODY.
A family making $40,000 a year would pay $8000.
A family making $400,000 would pay $80,000.
Sound fair? Look at it this way:
The first family is left with $32,000 to get by on. The second family still has a whopping $320,000. 20% is a hell of a lot to a family just barely getting by. Not so fair after all.

[kaz]

Aug 20, 2018 18:11:21 GMT -5 arkon said:

Aug 19, 2018 8:52:53 GMT -5 kaz said:

Let's go with a 20% rate for EVERYBODY.
A family making $40,000 a year would pay $8000.
A family making $400,000 would pay $80,000.
Sound fair? Look at it this way:
The first family is left with $32,000 to get by on. The second family still has a whopping $320,000. 20% is a hell of a lot to a family just barely getting by. Not so fair after all.

You're the one who picked 20%. Too high? Lower it, FOR EVERYBODY, like the President did, to be fair.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2018 18:59:31 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 20, 2018 18:11:21 GMT -5 arkon said:

You're the one who picked 20%. Too high? Lower it, FOR EVERYBODY, like the President did, to be fair.

Kaz,
   
     What percentage of all U.S. income is currently "earned" by (paid to) the wealthiest 1 per cent of our population?  Any idea?

      What percentage of the U.S. population (in a recent Federal Reserve report) is currently unable to afford a $400 "emergency" expense?

[oujour76]

Aug 20, 2018 18:11:21 GMT -5 arkon said:

Aug 19, 2018 8:52:53 GMT -5 kaz said:

Let's go with a 20% rate for EVERYBODY.
A family making $40,000 a year would pay $8000.
A family making $400,000 would pay $80,000.
Sound fair? Look at it this way:
The first family is left with $32,000 to get by on. The second family still has a whopping $320,000. 20% is a hell of a lot to a family just barely getting by. Not so fair after all.

What is your proposal? Are rates supposed to raise revenue for services, or for the government to determine how much you or I need to get by after paying taxes? Short of confiscatory rates or variable pricing on goods, it's impossible to devise a system that is "fair" to all.

[Walter]

Aug 20, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Aug 20, 2018 18:11:21 GMT -5 arkon said:

What is your proposal? Are rates supposed to raise revenue for services, or for the government to determine how much you or I need to get by after paying taxes? Short of confiscatory rates or variable pricing on goods, it's impossible to devise a system that is "fair" to all.

I keep saying it.
Whatever rate(s) generate the best result is the answer.
Stop F-ing around with notions of "fairness".
Imo, fairness is not relevant.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2018 21:51:05 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 20, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I keep saying it.
Whatever rate(s) generate the best result is the answer.
Stop F-ing around with notions of "fairness".
Imo, fairness is not relevant.

You'd bitch no matter what the rate is. It's the liberal way.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Aug 20, 2018 18:11:21 GMT -5 arkon said:

What is your proposal? Are rates supposed to raise revenue for services, or for the government to determine how much you or I need to get by after paying taxes? Short of confiscatory rates or variable pricing on goods, it's impossible to devise a system that is "fair" to all.

Tax rates for the wealthiest Americans and corporations are at historic 80 year lows (since Pearl Harbor.)Here's documentation for my "claim"-- although this chart doesn't even include the recent further drop in rates under Trump.

[Walter]

Aug 20, 2018 22:44:07 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Aug 20, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Tax rates for the wealthiest Americans and corporations are at historic 80 year lows (since Pearl Harbor.)Here's documentation for my "claim"-- although this chart doesn't even include the recent further drop in rates under Trump.

Looking at the graph, is it a surprise that we have a deficit?
Strange that conservatives do not want to address the debt...or maybe not so strange..

[daleko]

Aug 20, 2018 22:49:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 20, 2018 22:44:07 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Looking at the graph, is it a surprise that we have a deficit?
Strange that conservatives do not want to address the debt...or maybe not so strange..

You'd have a reasonable point for discussion if if just want to take a view on the timing of the recent reduction in tax revenues, w/o any other considerations factored in. I might slide a little to your pov. Trying to compare 1950s rates to today? Misguided. I wouldn't even post this except that you posted look at the graph, as if it was golden. I don't recall it as anything but a misguided meme.

Shoot what side of the fence an I on. <shrug> no links.

Willie's graph is missing some important info to make a point, to make his case. Misleading. I believe that the top 1% of American households in the 50s paid an average effective rate of only 17 % in income taxes during the 1950s. 91% down to 17%.  and this following the expense of WWII.   What's the average effective rate for the top 1% today? 25%?

Assuming my recollections of the differences are accurate. I'll try to dig up some data. If I'm totally wrong, my bad. But the 91% to 17% resonates as close.

That's the problem w relative marginal rates, w/o a whole lot of additional value add information, they can be misleading.

[arkon]

Aug 20, 2018 18:59:31 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 20, 2018 18:11:21 GMT -5 arkon said:

You're the one who picked 20%. Too high? Lower it, FOR EVERYBODY, like the President did, to be fair.

Your idea of fair is grossly unfair.