(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

(10-19-2017 09:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

The STATES have consumption taxes in place. My suggestion is for a NATIONAL consumption tax on top of whatever the states impose. It would not be "incredibly regressive" if certain basics are exempted. Whether on not it would sustain our revenue needs depends on two things: the rate that is set, and the amounts that are spent. I presume by sustaining our revenue, you mean the amount from FIT that covers only a small portion of our spending.

The rate might need to be anywhere from 17% to 28%. TBD.

Spending, as now, either would have to be financed by borrowing to cover the deficit, or (my preferred version), reigned in to meet the available funding. Since all citizens would be responsive to willy-nilly tax increases, the incentive for the politicians wanting to be re-elected would be the latter. Only people who want maximum spending over and above the revenue from FIT and an ever increasing national debt could possibly not like that.

(10-19-2017 09:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 09:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

The STATES have consumption taxes in place. My suggestion is for a NATIONAL consumption tax on top of whatever the states impose. It would not be "incredibly regressive" if certain basics are exempted. Whether on not it would sustain our revenue needs depends on two things: the rate that is set, and the amounts that are spent. I presume by sustaining our revenue, you mean the amount from FIT that covers only a small portion of our spending.

The rate might need to be anywhere from 17% to 28%. TBD.

Spending, as now, either would have to be financed by borrowing to cover the deficit, or (my preferred version), reigned in to meet the available funding. Since all citizens would be responsive to willy-nilly tax increases, the incentive for the politicians wanting to be re-elected would be the latter. Only people who want maximum spending over and above the revenue from FIT and an ever increasing national debt could possibly not like that.

Yep, I knew you wanted a national consumption tax, which is why I stated what is bolded above...

And I've got no idea what you mean by FIT, so trying to respond to a few of your comments is a bit difficult.

(10-19-2017 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Highly trained hearing skills.

(10-20-2017 09:20 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Highly trained hearing skills.

You guys certainly do. Oh wait, did you mean me? :-)

(10-19-2017 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Couple of points.

(10-19-2017 11:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, it just seems like you are projecting a lot onto Obama's speech - I don't hear a "screed" until your, IMVHO, ridiculous paraphrasing.

1. I guess you have never heard Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, Hillary, and Obama ever utter the phrase "pay their fair share" ever. Got it.

2. For a guy that draws down on dog whistles over a cartoon frog, it seems odd that you have never heard those explicit statements above, let alone put that simple four word mantra noted above and made incessantly by those actors into place and into context with the Obama comments.

3. Obama's comments, if they are what you say they are, are utterly fing disingenuous on the surface. The people to whom is speaking about "You didnt build that", given the current state of tax financing and the enormous proportional load paid by the upper 45 per cent for Federal income tax (i.e. almost the entirety), and on the enormous amount of taxes collected on the seriously income rich, they probably *actually did* pay for the great weight the mfing infrastructure.

Why do you need to state that 'others' built 'that', when most likely the sourcing came from the people the great professor was "lecturing", if not to implicitly tell the 45 per cent who dont pay income taxes that 'there is more gravy out there we need to get.' Obama wont get votes or support for saying 'hey lets all build infrastructure' -- he gets votes by emphasizing class divides and berating those who have.

Much like Pelosi, Schumer, and the vast majority of the Democrats have made de rigueur for their playbook. Nothing wrong with, it is just politics and pandering to those support groups you can rile up. But the message isnt a dog 'whistle', that is a friggin' dog 'lighthouse foghorn'.....

Quote:And so when I hear Obama in this speech, I actually hear him making a statement much closer to yours above than the collectivist call to arms you guys are hearing.

When you take the speech in isolation and explicitly -- potentially. But as I noted before, the thunderous chorus of the liberals and progressives is a continuous roar of "make them pay their fair share" even in light of the vast proportional load of the current taxes they already pay.

Quote:I suspect we could debate this endlessly...

I would ask that you take as much context for this as you do your Pepe the Frog issues.

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I lost where Pepe came into this again, but I think this is just another round of the same disagreement - you hear a call for massive redistribution based on your larger perception of Obama's agenda and I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

(10-20-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

1. What lurch? Specifically what "basic services" do you see on the defensive? Or "basic infrastructure"?
2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.
So why else state that?
Yeah, has *nothing* to do with constant chorus of "pay your fair share" scolding that is so incessant from the liberal camp. Nothing at all. He just laid a whopper of msidirection for ***** and giggles I guess....

(10-20-2017 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

1. What lurch? Specifically what "basic services" do you see on the defensive? Or "basic infrastructure"?
2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.
So why else state that?
Yeah, has *nothing* to do with constant chorus of "pay your fair share" scolding that is so incessant from the liberal camp. Nothing at all. He just laid a whopper of msidirection for ***** and giggles I guess....

Exactly. Unless the statement is some kind of dog whistle calling for a collectivist/socialist/communist massive redistribution scheme, what is the point of making the statement?