Boehner decides tax cuts for the rich are more important than the debt

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ah... pull out the communism propaganda eh, paranoid?

I was fairly clear. The rich are not burdened in comparison to those like you and me. There's something inherently odd about that if we want to talk about fairness.

You managed to contradict and justify my allegation in just four short sentences.

[Dan J 277]

The rich are already paying most of the tax burden in this country. The top 10% pay more than 50% of the taxes.

The bottom 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all - only Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Just how much is a "fair share"?

Why aren't the bottom 50% earning enough to pay more taxes?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fair is when everyone pays more or less the same rate.

I am subject to the same rate on my income over $1MM as any other person. And everyone is on the hook for the same tax rate on their first 10K and so on and so forth. Obviously, I don't pay 35% on my income between 350K and 1MM because I don't have that income. I also don't pay a $7K sales tax on my $100K Mercedes but only $700 on my $10K Hyundai. And yet, I pay at the same rate as the guy that buys the Benz. You spend less, you pay less in sales taxes. You make less, you pay less in income taxes. And vice versa. The tax rates apply to everyone all the same. How is that not fair?

[^_^ 5,021]

Why aren't the bottom 50% earning enough to pay more taxes?

because the tax code is structured in such a way that they don't have to?

[slim 1,533]

Fair is when everyone pays more or less the same rate.

No, fair is when everyone pays the exact same amount. If there are 100 Americans paying for the American government that costs $100/year they should all pay $1/year. That's fair.

Even under the "fair" tax system, you'd have 42 of those Americans paying nothing at all, another 50 or so paying a dime and then the remainder would pay about $9 each. How is that fair?

We're talking about taxes here, crusader.

I know how much you despise them, even though your paying more will ensure your rich overseers will not have to drop more crumbs from their dividends thanks to your effort.

My rich overseers? You mean the folks who are wealthy? Why should they have to pay for my stuff?

Why aren't the bottom 50% earning enough to pay more taxes?

They're being discriminated against. If we had another government program to make sure their companies had to pay them more we could get more taxes too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why aren't the bottom 50% earning enough to pay more taxes?

Because they're not afforded a fair share of the fruit of their labor. Nobody wants to talk about that sharing, though.

because the tax code compensation is structured in such a way that they don't have to?

fixed

[Zero Sum 305]

You managed to contradict and justify my allegation in just four short sentences.

Or perhaps your paranoia managed to read too much into what I may or may not be supporting.

[^_^ 5,021]

Because they're not afforded a fair share of the fruit of their labor. Nobody wants to talk about that sharing, though.

How do you keep someone on the job if you don't pay them a 'fair' wage? They will leave for someone else who does. The best employees always get top dollar, you know that.

People are paid what they're worth over the long term.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, fair is when everyone pays the exact same amount. If there are 100 Americans paying for the American government that costs $100/year they should all pay $1/year. That's fair.

So, if national income in your utopian America is $1,000.00 then each of the 100 Americans gets ten bucks? Awesome, comrade!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How do you keep someone on the job if you don't pay them a 'fair' wage? They will leave for someone else who does. The best employees always get top dollar, you know that.

That only works for some. It can never work for all. And it doesn't work when the choice is between an unfair wage and no wage. There is no fairness in the compensation structure when you have millions of people working in jobs that don't pay enough to merely survive while the top shelf pulls down insane compensation packages whether they succeed or fail. And you know that, too.

[^_^ 5,021]

... you have millions of people working in jobs that don't pay enough to merely survive ...

That's hyperbole. People aren't dropping dead on the streets because of hunger, so let's get real.

You are right about one thing. There really are millions of people working ####### jobs that require the skills of a robot. There is no reason to pay them well, their skills are not worth it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lets look at the flat tax nations to see what we could be!

Albania

Bulgaria

Czech Republic (not so bad)

Estonia

Georgia

Guernsey (not so bad)

Hungary

Kazakstan

Iraq

Jersey (yeah! one island thats kinda cool)

Kyrgyzstan

Latvia

Macedonia

Mongolia

Romania

Ukraine

Serbia

Russia

[mawilson 2,133]

No, fair is when everyone pays the exact same amount. If there are 100 Americans paying for the American government that costs $100/year they should all pay $1/year. That's fair.

It's not a bad idea, because you essentially use the same services (national defense, public education, national parks, the interstate highway system, etc) whether you're rich or poor.

Everyone benefits from these services in the same way. Does a rich person enjoy the national parks more than a poor person? Why should he pay more for their maintenance?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's not a bad idea, because you essentially use the same services (national defense, public education, national parks, the interstate highway system, etc) whether you're rich or poor.

Everyone benefits from these services in the same way. Does a rich person enjoy the national parks more than a poor person? Why should he pay more for their maintenance?

National park system? Nah.

General Infrastructure - yes.

Security related services - yes

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's hyperbole. People aren't dropping dead on the streets because of hunger, so let's get real.

You are right about one thing. There really are millions of people working ####### jobs that require the skills of a robot. There is no reason to pay them well, their skills are not worth it.

No, people aren't dropping dead on the street because they use food stamps despite putting in an honest day of work. They're on Medicare despite putting in an host day of work. Millions of people have long worked menial jobs and have still managed to support their families on what they take home from those jobs w/o having to rely on public assistance. In those days, the top executives didn't pull in 500 times what their employees took home either. I suspect that the latter has something to do with the former. We can deny that, of course, but that's not going to make this country a better place for our children and grandchildren.