Barry in KC Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets mad, says "I don't get it", and storms away.) Edited August 4, 2011 by Barry in KC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. The closest you'll get is "well, the tax rate was xx% in 19xx", as though the year 19xx should be the baseline for determining what is fair (you'll notice those people never advocate using the same timeframe to evaluate the fairness of social program spending). As far as I can tell, it basically means 'people I am jealous of because they are more successful than me should keep paying more until they are forced to live the same lifestyle as me' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. The closest you'll get is "well, the tax rate was xx% in 19xx", as though the year 19xx should be the baseline for determining what is fair (you'll notice those people never advocate using the same timeframe to evaluate the fairness of social program spending). As far as I can tell, it basically means 'people I am jealous of because they are more successful than me should keep paying more until they are forced to live the same lifestyle as me' we are both forced to live the same lifestyle. Because, really, people that advocate "fairness" think it'll make everyone well off. It never occurs to them that it would drop everyone to the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets made, says "I don't get it", and storms away.) A certain party has been and is proposing cutting social programs, changing benefits, etc., etc. that clearly affect the middle-class and lower without addressing upper-class. That to many is not fair. How is it that they can alter all of this yet not ask the other group not to do anything? Because, really, people that advocate "fairness" think it'll make everyone well off. It never occurs to them that it would drop everyone to the same level. Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Yeah, I'm not paying enough taxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 A certain party has been and is proposing cutting social programs, changing benefits, etc., etc. that clearly affect the middle-class and lower without addressing upper-class. That to many is not fair. How is it that they can alter all of this yet not ask the other group not to do anything? Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities. And exactly what social programs, that are critical, is the certain party advocating cutting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 And exactly what social programs, that are critical, is the certain party advocating cutting? It's obvious you haven't been here for awhile. There are certain posters here that you just can't ask specific questions. They don't deal with specifics. They only deal with sweeping statements and grand generalizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 It's obvious you haven't been here for awhile. There are certain posters here that you just can't ask specific questions. They don't deal with specifics. They only deal with sweeping statements and grand generalizations. That's why I asked to define "fair", since the left uses that term so much. (Actually, I was here during the Clinton- Lewinsky debates. I am impressed that I have't been called a terrorist yet. Maybe things here have gotten civilized.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Because, really, people that advocate "fairness" think it'll make everyone well off. It never occurs to them that it would drop everyone to the same level. You just defined communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 That's why I asked to define "fair", since the left uses that term so much. (Actually, I was here during the Clinton- Lewinsky debates. I am impressed that I have't been called a terrorist yet. Maybe things here have gotten civilized.) I was trying to tell you that asking certain people to be specific was wasting your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you. You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be. In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets made, says "I don't get it", and storms away.) Why don't we ever discuss whether or not everyone is "doing" their fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you. You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be. In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about. Soviet Russia was modeled on the premise that the rich are evil and all would be better if everyone paid their "fair share" and that nobody, despite their ability or talent should possess anything of greater value than the neighbor. If only the world was rid of speculators & parasites, a workers' utopia would be attained. Or so they thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Soviet Russia was modeled on the premise that the rich are evil and all would be better if everyone paid their "fair share" and that nobody, despite their ability or talent should possess anything of greater value than the neighbor. If only the world was rid of speculators & parasites, a workers' utopia would be attained. Or so they thought. The throwaway "In Soviet Russia" line does not invalidate my point. A fully Capitalist system is just as Utopian and pie-in-the-sky as a fully Socialist system. Our current system lives somewhere on that spectrum and is certainly not so black and white. It's simply convenient for mindless cheerleaders to spew out the supreme virtues of the extremes of either system based on their political ideology of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 The throwaway "In Soviet Russia" line does not invalidate my point. A fully Capitalist system is just as Utopian and pie-in-the-sky as a fully Socialist system. Our current system lives somewhere on that spectrum and is certainly not so black and white. It's simply convenient for mindless cheerleaders to spew out the supreme virtues of the extremes of either system based on their political ideology of choice. The throwaway line and your point are equally invalid. Nobody here is arguing that we live in a perfectly capitalistic society. The argument is whether there's a fair contribution by everyone, especially the evil rich. You seem to be in the camp that believes that even though the wealthy pay 70% of income tax they don't pay a fair share, even though they comprise 10% of population and use up that share of resources ( probably much less of public resources) So please keep up the argument that it's the wealthy that are the drain of money. It's like WNY arguing that they're bailing out NYC and downstate, even though about 80% of NYS revenues are generated in the 8 counties south of Putnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you. You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be. In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about. How about answering the posters question? It is fairly straight forward. If I earn a million dollars, say, what is my 'fair share' as a percentage of my income? How much of that money is it fair for me to keep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. The closest you'll get is "well, the tax rate was xx% in 19xx", as though the year 19xx should be the baseline for determining what is fair (you'll notice those people never advocate using the same timeframe to evaluate the fairness of social program spending). As far as I can tell, it basically means 'people I am jealous of because they are more successful than me should keep paying more until they are forced to live the same lifestyle as me' here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes Edited August 4, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWVABillsFan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets made, says "I don't get it", and storms away.) The 1st problem to correct is worrying about what Ms. Pelosi says. I can be considered needy and work 2 jobs, 1 minimum wage, I ask for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes Not sure about the percentage, but the rest I agree with. I would add in, raise capital gains at least. Perhaps our biggest corporations could pay a bit more than the 5% or whatever they actually pay. I know GG will take me to task over that possibly as he has espoused no taxation IIRC. Still, it seems silly that small and medium business gets taxed more than the really big boys. Enlighten me if I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts