"Fair Share"
 

Let's attempt a definition, shall we?

Of course, a necessary part of "fairness" would be that the definition applies to everyone - so that it would not be possible for 49.5% to pay no income tax.

Admittedly a pipe dream - and I don't smoke.

Should have made clear that option 3 raises the rates. The richer will always pay more, the question is should they pay disproportionately more.

I hope a discussion on taxes makes its way back into the campaigns of the candidates.

it would be nice if a real, lengthy discussion was had on taxes. rates, tax reform, what to do about the entitlement programs. we need to face reality, rather than having politicians continue to pander to their constituents.


lol

right, like that'll happen.

Yeah - won't happen.

Why would politicians treat the budget and spending problem like the math problem that it clearly is?? Emotional heartstrings play so much better than addition and subtraction in the media.

no, it won't any time soon. and the longer it's ignored, the worse the eventual fix will be. but current pols won't have to worry about that in the future, they're just worried about their seats now.

You speak the truth. Let's just not consider that behavior to be anything close to "leadership".

There are more socialists preferring a "progressive" tax code then I thought.

I guess it is easier to support the tax code when it is somebody else's money.

lol
now i'm a socialist!

I was jesting a little bit...

I am surprised though - I always found the progressivity of the rate to be intellectually indefensible.

Nothing will be closer to fair than a proportional, single rate.

Some of those who disagree with that statement will complain about how much the rich "have left after paying taxes", and THAT motive would be socialistic. The minute it goes to "But the rich can AFFORD to pay more" - that's a symptom of a socialistic mindset.

i think the issue with the current system is all the loopholes. they need to reform the tax code, with more tax breaks to people who do actually create more jobs, who invest in new business. that type of stuff should be rewarded, rather than having some of the tax shelters that currently exist.

Socialism:

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Riot, I can accept those definitions for the end-state of imposed socialism.

But it follows that policies that move us in that direction can be called "socialistic". Think "slippery slope"...

You mean like government control of women's uteruses?

Yeah, I know Roe v. Wade sucks, but one Supreme Court crisis at a time, OK?

Not talking about Roe vs. Wade. Talking about government forced vaginal ultrasounds against a woman and her doctor's will, with the woman responsible for payment.

Seriously: what truly "socialistic" (oh, I used quotes! :rolleyes:) systems do we have in this democratic republic form of government?

The military. Wait, no, we also contract out alot of that to private people.

You left out if the baby would have any objection... that cannot be known.

The confiscation of wealth from someone who earned it for the purpose of giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is socialistic, and un-American.

Actually, no, it's not. It's called "taxation", it's enshrined in our government as the 16th Amendment of our Constitution, and we as a country do that for our mutual benefit as a society.

And we use that benefit, as a society, to purchase things for our better good. Like "civilization".

So, you have to decide, Joey:

First, are you for or against taxation? Because in this country, we pay taxes. So if you want to live here, you follow our tax code. If you don't want to pay any taxes, try Darfur. Or Somalia.

Secondly, if you don't like the tax code, or the amounts some people pay, you petition your government (another enshrined right) to change it.

Third: none of that is "socialism". It's "constitutional democracy with a representative government elected by the citizens".

Taxation is a legitimate mechanism for getting funds for essential service that are an expense for everyone. Not just an expense for some of the people - the ones who don't get the money.

Like most rational people, I am for the minimization of taxation - which of course corresponds to the maximization of my own discretion over my own money. This also results in the maximization of my personal freedom.

Petitioning your government when 49.5% of the people don't pay any income tax is pointless. This is not a democracy - never was. It is a constitutionally federated republic. "Mob rule" doesn't work out too well. Why should the recipient have as much say as the provider in an election? Of course he or she will vote to keep the checks coming, the math, budget, and impending implosion of the dollar be damned. So votes by the soon to be minority of income earners are meaningless.

It is socialism - clearly. And, since we didn't start out in a socialist country, it is part of a divide and conquer strategy to get us as far socialist as possible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.