• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

The "fair share" argument is a red herring. We have an elected government which makes this determination and enacts it into law.
Taxes are simply the price we pay for a civilized society. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that. It was true then and it is true today.

Yes, it is a red herring but used all the time. If you don't use that term, great but others do and the question is to them. Put an amount to fair share? Since the rich aren't paying their "fair share" according to many isn't it time to define fair share?
 
Have you noticed that no Obama supporter had defined "fair share" in talking about taxes on the rich? What exactly is that fair share number from the liberals/progressives here.

Listened to Barney Frank yesterday on the Estate Taxes and as usual he made me sick.

Its a bunch of bull that the libs spew. They constantly claim that the rich need to pay more yet they never deal with the fact that the rich pay for far more than they use. And that is undisputable. Its class warfare designed to buy the votes of their minions. the fact is, I don't care what sort of income someone has. If I am selling cars, if someone doesn't have the money they don't get a car-=that is not my fault. and people who demand more and more and more government services that they cannot afford to pay for are greedy looters. Libs constantly whine that the rich have a duty to fund the needs of the lazy, the untalented, and the unproductive but they never tell those people that they have a duty to stop demanding stuff they cannot afford to fund.
 
Yes, it is a red herring but used all the time. If you don't use that term, great but others do and the question is to them. Put an amount to fair share? Since the rich aren't paying their "fair share" according to many isn't it time to define fair share?

Libs also realize there are more looters than there are producers in many congressional districts and since the looters can sometimes outvote the producers, it is perfectly fine for the looters to constantly vote themselves the wealth of others. They NEVER EVER are willing to deal with the long term problem that when a majority of voters are looters, there is nothing to stop them voting themselves everyone else's wealth. Of course, many of the top taxpayers will leave meaning that the looters will have less wealth to take and then things will get really ugly

The libs never want to address what responsibilities the net tax consumers have--such as to stop engaging in costly unproductive behaviour like breeding like rabbits, dropping out of school due to pregnancy or drugs or crime etc.

its really hard to listen to people like Haymarket howling that us who are net tax payers have a duty to abide by the votes of the looters when he never wants to put any limitations or responsibilities onto them. Its because he wants them to continually electing welfare-socialists that he works for.
 
Its a bunch of bull that the libs spew. They constantly claim that the rich need to pay more yet they never deal with the fact that the rich pay for far more than they use. And that is undisputable. Its class warfare designed to buy the votes of their minions. the fact is, I don't care what sort of income someone has. If I am selling cars, if someone doesn't have the money they don't get a car-=that is not my fault. and people who demand more and more and more government services that they cannot afford to pay for are greedy looters. Libs constantly whine that the rich have a duty to fund the needs of the lazy, the untalented, and the unproductive but they never tell those people that they have a duty to stop demanding stuff they cannot afford to fund.

Yep, latest numbers show that the rich make 20% of all the income and pay 40% of the Federal income taxes with 47% of the income earners paying nothing in Federal Income taxes. so much for being fair.
 
Libs also realize there are more looters than there are producers in many congressional districts and since the looters can sometimes outvote the producers, it is perfectly fine for the looters to constantly vote themselves the wealth of others. They NEVER EVER are willing to deal with the long term problem that when a majority of voters are looters, there is nothing to stop them voting themselves everyone else's wealth. Of course, many of the top taxpayers will leave meaning that the looters will have less wealth to take and then things will get really ugly

The libs never want to address what responsibilities the net tax consumers have--such as to stop engaging in costly unproductive behaviour like breeding like rabbits, dropping out of school due to pregnancy or drugs or crime etc.

its really hard to listen to people like Haymarket howling that us who are net tax payers have a duty to abide by the votes of the looters when he never wants to put any limitations or responsibilities onto them. Its because he wants them to continually electing welfare-socialists that he works for.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin
 
Its a bunch of bull that the libs spew. They constantly claim that the rich need to pay more yet they never deal with the fact that the rich pay for far more than they use. And that is undisputable. Its class warfare designed to buy the votes of their minions. the fact is, I don't care what sort of income someone has. If I am selling cars, if someone doesn't have the money they don't get a car-=that is not my fault. and people who demand more and more and more government services that they cannot afford to pay for are greedy looters. Libs constantly whine that the rich have a duty to fund the needs of the lazy, the untalented, and the unproductive but they never tell those people that they have a duty to stop demanding stuff they cannot afford to fund.

I deal with it all the time with you. All the time. If I have dealt with it once, it has been dozens of times.

Why do you persist in outright fabrications?

You have been told over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread that it does not matter what relationship anyone has between payment of your damn sacred income tax and the rights of citizenship. It does not matter how much you pay or what you get back because there is not any relationship that is suppose to exist between those two. The relationship between the two is invented in your mind and is part of your belief system. In fact, it does not exist. In practice, it does not exist. In our nation, it does not exist.

Now can you please be honest about this and stop lying that nobody deals with this claim of yours.
 
I deal with it all the time with you. All the time. If I have dealt with it once, it has been dozens of times.

Why do you persist in outright fabrications?

You have been told over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread that it does not matter what relationship anyone has between payment of your damn sacred income tax and the rights of citizenship. It does not matter how much you pay or what you get back because there is not any relationship that is suppose to exist between those two. The relationship between the two is invented in your mind and is part of your belief system. In fact, it does not exist. In practice, it does not exist. In our nation, it does not exist.

Now can you please be honest about this and stop lying that nobody deals with this claim of yours.

I would love for you to take your own advice and be honest for a change. Please name for me the services that the Federal Govt is to provide and then the services of the state and local govt? Seems to me you are easily confused and really need a basic civics course. Please tell me what is fair for the rich to pay of Federal Income taxes based upon the services that the Federal Govt. provides? Thank you.
 
from Turtle

its really hard to listen to people like Haymarket howling that us who are net tax payers have a duty to abide by the votes of the looters when he never wants to put any limitations or responsibilities onto them. Its because he wants them to continually electing welfare-socialists that he works for.

It is not ME who is telling you that the people have a right to vote and elect their representatives, it is the US Constitution for heavens sake. Where do you get off telling me and others what we are or are not concerned about regarding what responsibilities citizens have? If you have some evidence of my posts stating such things please be decent and honest and present them here for all to see. In the absence of it, please refrain from such irresponsible statements that only make you look like you are talking our of a place far lower than your upper orifice.
 
I would love for you to take your own advice and be honest for a change. Please name for me the services that the Federal Govt is to provide and then the services of the state and local govt? Seems to me you are easily confused and really need a basic civics course. Please tell me what is fair for the rich to pay of Federal Income taxes based upon the services that the Federal Govt. provides? Thank you.

Good lord man. I taught the basic civics course for 33 years. If you want to know about the three levels of government and the three branches of government and what their functions are I strongly advise you to purchase a basic US Government text book and begin reading now. I used several in my time but my favorite was AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: Principles and Practices by Turner, Switzer & Redden. It was published by Merrill.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Government-Mary-Jane-Turner/dp/0028238966

This is the latest edition. The one I used had an additional 100 pages so I cannot say if it is improved or lessened. But it was first rate in every way possible and one of the best textbooks I every used or saw.

All your questions will be answered in there.
 
Last edited:
I would love for you to take your own advice and be honest for a change. Please name for me the services that the Federal Govt is to provide and then the services of the state and local govt? Seems to me you are easily confused and really need a basic civics course. Please tell me what is fair for the rich to pay of Federal Income taxes based upon the services that the Federal Govt. provides? Thank you.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

Hows that for a list of services provided by the federal government?

For the states...well I'm not going to look up every single state so I'll just give you the state in which I reside....

Idaho State Constitution
 
Libs also realize there are more looters than there are producers in many congressional districts and since the looters can sometimes outvote the producers, it is perfectly fine for the looters to constantly vote themselves the wealth of others. They NEVER EVER are willing to deal with the long term problem that when a majority of voters are looters, there is nothing to stop them voting themselves everyone else's wealth. Of course, many of the top taxpayers will leave meaning that the looters will have less wealth to take and then things will get really ugly

You know turtledude...One day I hope to God that you loose all of your wealth. Not to be an ass or anything but to show you, teach you what it is actually like to be poor. Because you have NO CLUE what it is like or about.

its really hard to listen to people like Haymarket howling that us who are net tax payers have a duty to abide by the votes of the looters when he never wants to put any limitations or responsibilities onto them. Its because he wants them to continually electing welfare-socialists that he works for.

If you don't like it then move out of the country and renounce your citizenship. Because we're not the ones that are telling you that you have to abide by anything. There are only two things that do that. 1: You. 2: The Constitution of the United States of America. And number 2 isn't even binding for the simple fact that you can move out of the US and renounce citizenship.
 
No, please do not wish ill will to our rich people. Pleasssssssssssssssssssssssssseeeee do not do this! How will we fund our great society without people like turtle dude?
 
Good lord man. I taught the basic civics course for 33 years. If you want to know about the three levels of government and the three branches of government and what their functions are I strongly advise you to purchase a basic US Government text book and begin reading now. I used several in my time but my favorite was AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: Principles and Practices by Turner, Switzer & Redden. It was published by Merrill.

Amazon.com: American Government: Principles and Practice (9780028238968): Mary Jane Turner, Kenneth Switzer, Charlotte Redden: Books

This is the latest edition. The one I used had an additional 100 pages so I cannot say if it is improved or lessened. But it was first rate in every way possible and one of the best textbooks I every used or saw.

All your questions will be answered in there.

then that is scary, as I pointed out there are Federal Responsibilities and state responsibilities. I asked what the fair tax rate was for the rich and this is what I get? Then you ignore that 47% of the income earners don't pay any Federal Income taxes. Is that fair? It does seem that you have a problem with what you actually taught and don't understand what the various taxes fund or the actual role of the Federal Govt. What is the fair tax rate for the rich in your world?
 
Hows that for a list of services provided by the federal government?

For the states...well I'm not going to look up every single state so I'll just give you the state in which I reside....

Idaho State Constitution


The question was what is a fair rate for the Federal Govt. to tax the rich? I keep hearing liberals claiming that the rich need to pay their fair share and I rightly pointed out that 47% of the income earners in this country don't pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES so it does seem that you and others here have a problem understanding the difference between Federal and State tax rates and what they fund. I have no problem understanding the role of the Federal Govt. but it seems that isn't the case here for many. What is the fair FEDERAL tax rate for the rich?
 
The question was what is a fair rate for the Federal Govt. to tax the rich? I keep hearing liberals claiming that the rich need to pay their fair share and I rightly pointed out that 47% of the income earners in this country don't pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES so it does seem that you and others here have a problem understanding the difference between Federal and State tax rates and what they fund. I have no problem understanding the role of the Federal Govt. but it seems that isn't the case here for many. What is the fair FEDERAL tax rate for the rich?

The same amount that they charge everyone else. I support the flat tax. Of course the rich would still complain that they were paying out more than anyone else. Which they would be...that's what happens when you base taxes on percentages rather than an exact dollar amount. But you can't really do dollar amounts either since spending is often a fluid system. Not to mention charging 30k per year from someone that is poor means that you're not going to get that 30k and likewise charging everyone 10 bucks a year is not going to get the bills payed.

Point is that the rich in our society will always have to pay more to the government than the poor. Is it fair? Probably not. But just because they may pay more doesn't give them the right to rule over everyone else like turtledude wants.
 
His main goal is no different than any first term president. To get re elected. GHWB was the only one I have seen in my lifetime who didn't really care about that.

That's a compliment to GHWB in my view.

If he's doing this to get re-elected he's doing a fantastic job, a quarter of his party's base disapproves of him.

If anything, this will hurt his chances severely.
 
The question was what is a fair rate for the Federal Govt. to tax the rich? I keep hearing liberals claiming that the rich need to pay their fair share and I rightly pointed out that 47% of the income earners in this country don't pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES so it does seem that you and others here have a problem understanding the difference between Federal and State tax rates and what they fund. I have no problem understanding the role of the Federal Govt. but it seems that isn't the case here for many. What is the fair FEDERAL tax rate for the rich?

You are being intentionally obtuse. And there is a ideological purpose to your method.

There is no 25 word or less snappy definition to what is fair in terms of taxation. It is a very complicated problem that no matter how carefully planned will always strike some persons as "unfair" depending on their personal situation. I suspect you already know that. And I suspect you realize that there is no such definition but you persist in pushing this because you feel there is some magic political gain to be made in this line of debate.

Taxes are levied to fund the government. The level of taxation that is necessary is determined by the elected representatives of the people depending on the situation at the time. What is necessary in a time like 1943 is very different from what is necessary in a time like 1923.

People are not equal. People do not earn equal amounts of money. People do not have the same equal amounts to pay. Our progressive tax system recognizes this fact.

We have a wide variety of taxes that people pay. Just about everyone in our society pays some sort of tax somehow, someway at some time or another. Different taxes hit different people differently.

It is fairly obvious that folks like you and others on the right here get very angry about 'ability to pay' and many of you feel that taking that concept into consideration for tax rates is itself 'not fair'...... whatever that phrase means to you. In my approach, to ignore ability to pay would be a ridiculous thing to do. The purpose of taxation is to raise money for the government. When you raise money, you go where the most money is available to be raised.

You cannot get blood from a rock is a wise expression. And it applies to taxation also. Willie Sutton famously replied that he robbed banks because that is where the money was. And it to applies to taxation. To ignore both of those realities is to place yourself in an ideological straight jacket which makes for poor tax policy.
 
Last edited:
Hows that for a list of services provided by the federal government?

For the states...well I'm not going to look up every single state so I'll just give you the state in which I reside....

Idaho State Constitution

and where does it say that the rich are actually getting any additional benefits? They don't

the people who pay NO income tax actually get far more benefits FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT than those who pay 40% of the income tax and all the death tax
 
You know turtledude...One day I hope to God that you loose all of your wealth. Not to be an ass or anything but to show you, teach you what it is actually like to be poor. Because you have NO CLUE what it is like or about.



If you don't like it then move out of the country and renounce your citizenship. Because we're not the ones that are telling you that you have to abide by anything. There are only two things that do that. 1: You. 2: The Constitution of the United States of America. And number 2 isn't even binding for the simple fact that you can move out of the US and renounce citizenship.

Loose all your wealth? your envy is pretty common among people like you. Thanks for proving my point as to what motivates the looter class. People who pay most of the taxes benefit people like you. Tax consumers like you don't benefit those of us who pay taxes
 
The same amount that they charge everyone else. I support the flat tax. Of course the rich would still complain that they were paying out more than anyone else. Which they would be...that's what happens when you base taxes on percentages rather than an exact dollar amount. But you can't really do dollar amounts either since spending is often a fluid system. Not to mention charging 30k per year from someone that is poor means that you're not going to get that 30k and likewise charging everyone 10 bucks a year is not going to get the bills payed.

Point is that the rich in our society will always have to pay more to the government than the poor. Is it fair? Probably not. But just because they may pay more doesn't give them the right to rule over everyone else like turtledude wants.

Of course the rich will always pay more because they make more. The flat tax means everyone pays the same rate but never the same amount. Not sure you understand the question. Throughout this thread the comments have been made about the rich paying their fair share and I simply asked what that fair share was and also asked if 47% not paying ANY FEDERAL INCOME Taxes was fair? Then I get the tax debate with claims that that 47% pay some taxes which was never the issue. The issue is FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!
 
You are being intentionally obtuse. And there is a ideological purpose to your method.

There is no 25 word or less snappy definition to what is fair in terms of taxation. It is a very complicated problem that no matter how carefully planned will always strike some persons as "unfair" depending on their personal situation. I suspect you already know that. And I suspect you realize that there is no such definition but you persist in pushing this because you feel there is some magic political gain to be made in this line of debate.

Taxes are levied to fund the government. The level of taxation that is necessary is determined by the elected representatives of the people depending on the situation at the time. What is necessary in a time like 1943 is very different from what is necessary in a time like 1923.

People are not equal. People do not earn equal amounts of money. People do not have the same equal amounts to pay. Our progressive tax system recognizes this fact.

We have a wide variety of taxes that people pay. Just about everyone in our society pays some sort of tax somehow, someway at some time or another. Different taxes hit different people differently.

It is fairly obvious that folks like you and others on the right here get very angry about 'ability to pay' and many of you feel that taking that concept into consideration for tax rates is itself 'not fair'...... whatever that phrase means to you. In my approach, to ignore ability to pay would be a ridiculous thing to do. The purpose of taxation is to raise money for the government. When you raise money, you go where the most money is available to be raised.

You cannot get blood from a rock is a wise expression. And it applies to taxation also. Willie Sutton famously replied that he robbed banks because that is where the money was. And it to applies to taxation. To ignore both of those realities is to place yourself in an ideological straight jacket which makes for poor tax policy.

1) a consumption tax or a flat tax would make the more able pay more yet prevent the current pandering from taking place as well. That is what scares you the most-dem politicians would not be able to buy the votes of the net tax consumers by promising them that others will suffer tax hikes to pay for the goodies the net tax consumers want.

2) the current system is poor policy because it almost demands that the NTCS demand more and more services in order to vote for those who promise them, while those who bear the brunt of paying the taxes cannot outvote the tax consumers. This system will collapse

3) you support a political system that demands that tax burdens on the rich go up and up in order for your side to buy votes and then you demand that the rich should have to pay more and more. You put winning elections ahead of the good of the country-and no one can argue the country is better off creating more and more dependent tax consumers who demand more and more services and a tax system where less and less have to shoulder the burden
 
Of course the rich will always pay more because they make more. The flat tax means everyone pays the same rate but never the same amount. Not sure you understand the question. Throughout this thread the comments have been made about the rich paying their fair share and I simply asked what that fair share was and also asked if 47% not paying ANY FEDERAL INCOME Taxes was fair? Then I get the tax debate with claims that that 47% pay some taxes which was never the issue. The issue is FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

Libs try to obfuscate the issue by talking about social security payments, etc. Those aren't the issues that are used to buy votes. and are not the "taxes" that fund most of the services that are used to buy the votes of the middle class and the poor.
 
from Conservative

The issue is FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!

Actually the issue is taxation. Conservatives and right wingers simply want to narrow the field of discussion to ONLY income tax because right wing think tanks like Cato are pushing this new meme about the 47% in an attempt to both attack voting rights and alleviate the 'burden' of taxes on the wealthy. Never lose sight of what is really going on here. Lets not pretend this is something else other than a money and power grab.
 
You are being intentionally obtuse. And there is a ideological purpose to your method.

There is no 25 word or less snappy definition to what is fair in terms of taxation. It is a very complicated problem that no matter how carefully planned will always strike some persons as "unfair" depending on their personal situation. I suspect you already know that. And I suspect you realize that there is no such definition but you persist in pushing this because you feel there is some magic political gain to be made in this line of debate.

Taxes are levied to fund the government. The level of taxation that is necessary is determined by the elected representatives of the people depending on the situation at the time. What is necessary in a time like 1943 is very different from what is necessary in a time like 1923.

People are not equal. People do not earn equal amounts of money. People do not have the same equal amounts to pay. Our progressive tax system recognizes this fact.

We have a wide variety of taxes that people pay. Just about everyone in our society pays some sort of tax somehow, someway at some time or another. Different taxes hit different people differently.

It is fairly obvious that folks like you and others on the right here get very angry about 'ability to pay' and many of you feel that taking that concept into consideration for tax rates is itself 'not fair'...... whatever that phrase means to you. In my approach, to ignore ability to pay would be a ridiculous thing to do. The purpose of taxation is to raise money for the government. When you raise money, you go where the most money is available to be raised.

You cannot get blood from a rock is a wise expression. And it applies to taxation also. Willie Sutton famously replied that he robbed banks because that is where the money was. And it to applies to taxation. To ignore both of those realities is to place yourself in an ideological straight jacket which makes for poor tax policy.

This is your response? You don't have a clue and continue to divert from the issue. The bill Obama signed was EXTENSION OF THE BUSH INCOME TAX RATES, rates applied to all individuals that make income in this country. It has nothing to do with other taxes that individuals pay but as usual you ignore the question, what is a fair rate for the rich to pay? Are you telling me that 47% of the people in this country cannot pay anything in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES? Keep running and dodging.
 
This is your response? You don't have a clue and continue to divert from the issue. The bill Obama signed was EXTENSION OF THE BUSH INCOME TAX RATES, rates applied to all individuals that make income in this country. It has nothing to do with other taxes that individuals pay but as usual you ignore the question, what is a fair rate for the rich to pay? Are you telling me that 47% of the people in this country cannot pay anything in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES? Keep running and dodging.

You are simply following the marching orders of right wing think tanks like Cato and others who are attempting to frame the larger issue of taxation and public policy in its most narrow form possible because they believe they have a winning issue in that.

Of course, as we found out right here on our little board when we polled the issue, there is no real support for linking income tax rates to the larger issue of citizenship rights. It fails miserably.
 
Back
Top Bottom