What is fair pay and taxation?

[mark14]

It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate that our debt is on a downward path, workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system.

A deal to institute this sensible approach was struck under George H Bush, Bill Clinton and both Republican and Democratic Congresses but broken by GW Bush and Republicans with their unfunded tax cuts disproportionately for the rich leading to our current situation and their ongoing refusal to accept a balance plan for budgetary recovery based on both making cuts they necessitated and re instituting any of the tax cuts they made.

Now give me your "conservative" explanations.

 

[Lukey]

Tax rates are irrelevant. Taxes are relevant and spending = taxes (current + deferred). So the only time we ever practiced (true) supply side economics was during the latter years of the Clinton Administration. How was the economy back then?

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

You left out Obama remember he is the President that said the idea of raising taxes in a down economy was a bad idea.
Also if Obama raised taxes to the Clinton era rates it would increase revenue over a 9 year period an amount equal to a couple of months of Obama spending.... Do ya think we might have a little bit of a spending problem also?

 

[StanH]

Oh I much prefer the liberal plan. Have 40+% of Americans pay no federal income tax, demonize successful people and target them with tax rates as high as we can get them based on the envy and greed of the people getting a free ride.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Mr. Mark,

As per your first question, fair pay is exactly what everybody currently earns. By definition, except through error or malfeasence, it is impossible to over pay someone, just like it is impossible to underpay someone. Everybody earns exactly what they are worth.

As to your second question, taxation should be a set rate for everybody and equally onurous for all, regardless of what losers on the lower end of the financial spectrum think.

 

[mark14]

Tax rates are irrelevant. Taxes are relevant and spending = taxes (current + deferred). So the only time we ever practiced (true) supply side economics was during the latter years of the Clinton Administration. How was the economy back then?

Taxes = Tax rate x value of what is being taxed (provided you can actually collect it). Your gobbledygook is wearisome. For that matter not all spending comes from taxes. Congress still has the power to coin and the set the value of money last I looked at the Constitution but taxes are an important part of funding spending and are also an important Constitutional power. With Republicans refusing to pay a penny more in taxes toward reducing the debt for what has already been spent and also threatening to renege on the debt I think it is very likely that the deferred taxes you constantly refer to may be a theoretical concept invoked to justify not intending to ever pay them. So why shouldn't we start paying some of them now, of course, along with economizing on spending especially as deferred taxes come with interest payments as well?

 

[Lukey]

Taxes = Tax rate x value of what is being taxed (provided you can actually collect it). Your gobbledygook is wearisome. For that matter not all spending comes from taxes. Congress still has the power to coin and the set the value of money last I looked at the Constitution but taxes are an important part of funding spending and are also an important Constitutional power. With Republicans refusing to pay a penny more in taxes toward reducing the debt for what has already been spent and also threatening to renege on the debt I think it is very likely that the deferred taxes you constantly refer to may be a theoretical concept invoked to justify not intending to ever pay them. So why shouldn't we start paying some of them now, of course, along with economizing on spending especially as deferred taxes come with interest payments as well?

When a government prints money it acts like a tax on everyone because it devalues their dollar holdings. I hate to burst your bubble but there (still) is no such thing as a free lunch...

 

[mark14]

When a government prints money it acts like a tax on everyone because it devalues their dollar holdings. I hate to burst your bubble but there (still) is no such thing as a free lunch...

God you are hoot. Nothing but cliches. "When a government prints money it acts like a tax on everyone because it devalues their dollar holdings." I can't stop laughing. Think Lukey. You don't get it do you? I bet you also like to complain about all the welfare bums getting their free lunches out of the other side of your mouth too.

 

[mark14]

Mr. Mark,

As per your first question, fair pay is exactly what everybody currently earns. By definition, except through error or malfeasence, it is impossible to over pay someone, just like it is impossible to underpay someone. Everybody earns exactly what they are worth.

As to your second question, taxation should be a set rate for everybody and equally onurous for all, regardless of what losers on the lower end of the financial spectrum think.

So all the teachers, cops and other government employees are getting what they are worth and we shouldn't cut their pay or benefits. I'm sure they appreciate your support. Obviously ditto all the CEO"S and hedge fund maniagers. But how do you define "error or malfeasence (sic)"?

So are you just flat tax or also flat earth?

 

[Lukey]

God you are hoot. Nothing but cliches. "When a government prints money it acts like a tax on everyone because it devalues their dollar holdings." I can't stop laughing. Think Lukey. You don't get it do you? I bet you also like to complain about all the welfare bums getting their free lunches out of the other side of your mouth too.

Oh no, those aren't "free" - they are just paid for by someone else (like in any socialist system).

 

[mark14]

You left out Obama remember he is the President that said the idea of raising taxes in a down economy was a bad idea.
Also if Obama raised taxes to the Clinton era rates it would increase revenue over a 9 year period an amount equal to a couple of months of Obama spending.... Do ya think we might have a little bit of a spending problem also?

Go back and reread the top post, then get back to me.

 

[mark14]

Oh no, those aren't "free" - they are just paid for by someone else (like in any socialist system).

What. They are paid for by the taxes you don't pay?

In your world view nothing is free is it?

This is appropriate for you -

Luke 12:22-32

American Standard Version (ASV)

22 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.

23 For the life is more than the food, and the body than the raiment.

24 Consider the ravens, that they sow not, neither reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth them: of how much more value are ye than the birds!

25 And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit unto the measure of his life?

26 If then ye are not able to do even that which is least, why are ye anxious concerning the rest?

27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin; yet I say unto you, Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

28 But if God doth so clothe the grass in the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven; how much more shall he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, and what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: but your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.

31 Yet seek ye his kingdom, and these things shall be added unto you.

32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

So all the teachers, cops and other government employees are getting what they are worth and we shouldn't cut their pay or benefits. I'm sure they appreciate your support. Obviously ditto all the CEO"S and hedge fund maniagers. But how do you define "error or malfeasence (sic)"?

So are you just flat tax or also flat earth?

Mr. Mark,

Why the insult. Just because I bested your thinking, you shouldn't resort to such banal retorts. It reflects badly on you.

Now, please, stay on subject, and don't make unsupported conjecture with regards to what I said. Nowhere did I mention a flat tax.

 

[mark14]

Mr. Mark,

Why the insult. Just because I bested your thinking, you shouldn't resort to such banal retorts. It reflects badly on you.

Now, please, stay on subject, and don't make unsupported conjecture with regards to what I said. Nowhere did I mention a flat tax.

I do think your comments that people can't be underpaid or overpaid are a bit vacuous but I apologize if I misunderstood you. To write "taxation should be a set rate for everybody" does sound like a flat tax but if you meant taxation should be a different rates without deductions or something along such lines then perhaps you can explain what you meant.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

I do think your comments that people can't be underpaid or overpaid are a bit vacuous but I apologize if I misunderstood you. To write "taxation should be a set rate for everybody" does sound like a flat tax but if you meant taxation should be a different rates without deductions or something along such lines then perhaps you can explain what you meant.

Mr. Mark,

How is a fact "vacuous"? Again, unless there is an accounting error, or if the employeer is illegally not paying the agreed upon price for labor, it is not possible to underpay or overpay anybody. Everybody is paid exactly what they are worth, otherwise, they would be paid more or less, depending on the situation.

I said taxation should be at a set rate that is equally onerous for everyone. Currently, that is not the case. Half the people in this country suck off the system, at the expense of those that do pay taxes.

 

[mark14]

Mr. Mark,

How is a fact "vacuous"? Again, unless there is an accounting error, or if the employeer is illegally not paying the agreed upon price for labor, it is not possible to underpay or overpay anybody. Everybody is paid exactly what they are worth, otherwise, they would be paid more or less, depending on the situation.

I said taxation should be at a set rate that is equally onerous for everyone. Currently, that is not the case. Half the people in this country suck off the system, at the expense of those that do pay taxes.

You statements are not a fact and it is vacuous because it argues that something is the way it is supposed to be just because it simply is. Don't feel bad Leibniz argued the same thing with his theory of theodicy -

"The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" (French: le meilleur des mondes possibles; German: Die beste aller möglichen Welten) was coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil."

- wikipedia

and Voltaire ribbed him mercilessly for it in the character of Dr. Pangloss in his book "Candide". Just because people get paid what they get paid doesn't mean they get paid what they should be paid or deserve to be paid. As to what that is is a topic for ongoing discussion.

When you say "taxation should be at a set rate that is equally onerous for everyone" do you really think that is possible? I'm far less extreme than you on that but do you think, for instance, a tax rate of 15% on someone without home or savings making $30,000 is more or less onerous than one of 20% on someone with a home and savings making $300,000/year? What of 35% on someone making $3 million? So exactly how onerous is only taking home about $2 million?

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate that our debt is on a downward path, workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system.

A deal to institute this sensible approach was struck under George H Bush, Bill Clinton and both Republican and Democratic Congresses but broken by GW Bush and Republicans with their unfunded tax cuts disproportionately for the rich leading to our current situation and their ongoing refusal to accept a balance plan for budgetary recovery based on both making cuts they necessitated and re instituting any of the tax cuts they made.

Now give me your "conservative" explanations.

taxes should be 100% for any member of the GOP.
They do not need money in reeducation camps which Obama will establish using his Muslim-marxist, anti-imperialism approach

 

[UPNYA2]

It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate that our debt is on a downward path, workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system.

A deal to institute this sensible approach was struck under George H Bush, Bill Clinton and both Republican and Democratic Congresses but broken by GW Bush and Republicans with their unfunded tax cuts disproportionately for the rich leading to our current situation and their ongoing refusal to accept a balance plan for budgetary recovery based on both making cuts they necessitated and re instituting any of the tax cuts they made.

Now give me your "conservative" explanations.

Can't give you any sort of an "explanation", conservative or otherwise because no where in that ramble of liberal talking points did you "explain" ANY of what you are yammering for or against.

For example, you asked, "What is fair pay and taxation?", yet then proceeded to state, "It doesn't matter how much those at the "top" make so long as they pay a high enough tax rate..."

So perhaps you should begin by explaining what is "a high enough tax rate" for others to pay?

Then we have this little jewel; "workers make enough to have a comfortable existence with education for their children and an adequate retirement and the disabled or those who have fallen on hard times receive enough to survive or recover if able without exploiting the system".......

Perhaps we should begin with you telling us exactly what IS, "enough" for a worker to make, exactly what would constitute"a comfortable existence with education for their children", exactly what an "adequate retirement" would be or exactly what would be "enough to survive or recover if able".

After that it would be most helpful for you to explain who it is that gets to decide these things or at least how it is we can all agree to accept your opinions on the matters.

See, I can not even imagine YOU accepting the defining of "making enough", "a comfortable existence with education for their children", "adequate retirement" and "enough to survive or recover if able", by those at "the top", those who you say should have their tax rates adjusted to ensure all of these things.

But I could be wrong.

Being you state you want the tax rates of SOME to be adjusted in order to ensure that OTHERS are, "making enough", have a "comfortable existence with education for their children", an"adequate retirement" and "enough to survive or recover if able", do you also then want the "making enough", the having a "comfortable existence with education for their children", having an"adequate retirement" and having "enough to survive or recover if able", for these OTHERS to be adjusted as desired by the SOME?

To be "fair" and all...........

Otherwise what you are telling us is you want only to accept the views of those you do not want taxed more as you deem necessary and that doesn't seem right.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

You statements are not a fact and it is vacuous because it argues that something is the way it is supposed to be just because it simply is. Don't feel bad Leibniz argued the same thing with his theory of theodicy -

"The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" (French: le meilleur des mondes possibles; German: Die beste aller möglichen Welten) was coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil."

- wikipedia

and Voltaire ribbed him mercilessly for it in the character of Dr. Pangloss in his book "Candide". Just because people get paid what they get paid doesn't mean they get paid what they should be paid or deserve to be paid. As to what that is is a topic for ongoing discussion.

When you say "taxation should be at a set rate that is equally onerous for everyone" do you really think that is possible? I'm far less extreme than you on that but do you think, for instance, a tax rate of 15% on someone without home or savings making $30,000 is more or less onerous than one of 20% on someone with a home and savings making $300,000/year? What of 35% on someone making $3 million? So exactly how onerous is only taking home about $2 million?

Mr. Mark,

You are incorrect in that you confuse worth with value. Worth is the going price of commodity, in this case, labor. It is a set compensation package based on what is negotiated between an employeer and an employee. Ergo, by definition, you cannot pay someone more or less than what they are worth because that price has already been prearrainged and set.

Value, on the other hand, is a subjective entity, where the employee may think he is of more value than his worth, whereas the employeer may think his value is less.

With regard to your second argument, you bring up an irrelevency. It does not matter if one has a mansion, and the other is living in a hovel. They should both be taxes equally as fairly on what they earn, not what they have and have already been taxed on. Unless, of course, you perscribe to the "from each according to their ability,to each according to their need" doctrine.

 

[Alinvegas]

Fair pay = As much as you can possibly make
Fair taxes = everyone pays the same rate.