Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

[GoFins!]

Progressives dont want fair, they want punitive. They want those who have more to pay more. Lets start calling it what it is.

Agreed. They don't want fainess, they want everyone equal. They're also not concerned with revenue. It's about getting even - which is what they mean when they say "fair".

[GoFins!]

Fair is fair.....and that means everyone should be taxed at the same rate and share the burden equally. Where you got the notion that someone that worked and made more should shoulder more is patently unfair, because it has to be unfair to the person you take from.

At a flat 15% rate, the millionaire paying $150,000 in taxes is shouldering more burden than the working man who is paying $15,000 in taxes.

The way you explain it heare makes it sound like you're for a flat fee instead of a flat rate based on income.

[TheWalrus]

Anything other than a flat tax, by definition, is unfair.

Ok, buddy!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Paying a higher percentage than everyone else is not a good definition of "low" taxes. Using that way of thinking we could bump up the tax on the rich to 100% for a few years and then "lower" it 99% and tell them all what a great deal they're getting.

As well as being one of the more regulated countries in the world, our taxes on business are among the highest in the world too. Our labor costs are very high compared to many other countries as well.

From Bloomberg:

Bloomberg Rankings has analyzed dozens of data points from 11 sources to devise a new ranking of the world's best countries for business. Fifty nations were analyzed on six broad criteria including the cost of starting a business, the cost of labor and materials, and the cost of moving goods. The study also tallied how integrated each country was into the global economy, the "readiness" of its consumer base to participate in economic activity, and less tangible costs such as corruption and property rights protection.

The winner? Hong Kong, whose strong rankings on all six criteria edged it ahead of the Netherlands (No. 2) and the U.S. (No. 3).

Read more here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The US bends over backwards to be a great place to do business. Meanwhile the American worker has suffered and the gap between the rich and poor has skyrocketed in the last 30 years. Not all of these are either/or choices, but this concept that business is struggling because of governmental interference or restrictive policies is just flat ridiculous. It's time for workers to win out on a few of these choices that are either/or, though.

The heart of a thriving economy is a strong middle class, and the best way to help create a strong middle class is to invest in it. That investment has to be paid for.

[GoFins!]

... why do you believe raising taxes would not have an impact on the deficit?

If you keep doing things that shrink the pie (the economy) it doesn't matter how big of a piece you take.

macinack(dot)org/676

History has shown that taking less to grow the economy actually increases revenues.

Which leads us back to the fundamental question: is this about revenue or "fairness"?

[TheWalrus]

If you keep doing things that shrink the pie (the economy) it doesn't matter how big of a piece you take.

macinack(dot)org/676

History has shown that taking less to grow the economy actually increases revenues.

No it hasn't. All the Laffer Curve, which is the basis for supply side economics, says is that there is a sweet spot in tax rates at which revenue is maximized (since the government will take in the same amount of revenue at 0% tax and 100% tax). That is not the same thing as saying that lowering tax rates will always increase revenue.

Nobody agrees where that point in the curve is, however. It could be 5% or it could be 95%.

Income tax rates have been significantly decreased twice in the last 60 years, by Kennedy and by Reagan. The actual effect decreasing rates had on the economy is widely and vigorously disputed. There's too many variables for a pat analysis of the kind you're making.

Which leads us back to the fundamental question: is this about revenue or "fairness"?

It's about both. Revenue must be raised, therefore it raises the question of how.

[Statler Waldorf]

You consistently use the word arbitrary wrong. It's not a random choice, made for no reason. I have my reasons. Someone else can have theirs.

Actually you just used it wrong, whenever you base something upon your own standard it is the very definition of being arbitrary because you have based it upon your own personal whim, you have made yourself the ultimate arbiter. Of course that is not allowed in logical reasoning and that ss why I always have to press you on that issue. If you deem for yourself what is “fair” and “unfair” then you have no logical ground to make an argument that the current tax code is somehow “unfair” because you arbitrarily set the standard for fairness.

As for your last point: that's what democracies do. The population as a whole by vote or by choice of leaders sets policy that might only affect a portion of the population.

That is precisely why democracies ultimately always fail, the people eventually realize that they can just vote to give themselves more freebees at the expense of the minority.

[Statler Waldorf]

Agreed. They don't want fainess, they want everyone equal. They're also not concerned with revenue. It's about getting even - which is what they mean when they say "fair".

You could not have possibly hit the nail more squarely on the head. They have no standard of “fairness”, it is whatever they arbitrarily set it at. The wealthy already pay a higher percentage than anyone else; that looks to me as being more than their fair share. This is more about social justice and equal outcome than anything else, you’re absolutely right.

[TheWalrus]

Actually you just used it wrong, whenever you base something upon your own standard it is the very definition of being arbitrary because you have based it upon your own personal whim, you have made yourself the ultimate arbiter. Of course that is not allowed in logical reasoning and that ss why I always have to press you on that issue. If you deem for yourself what is “fair” and “unfair” then you have no logical ground to make an argument that the current tax code is somehow “unfair” because you arbitrarily set the standard for fairness.

No.

That is precisely why democracies ultimately always fail, the people eventually realize that they can just vote to give themselves more freebees at the expense of the minority.

Can you give me some examples of democracies that fell for this reason?

[Dolphins9954]

9954 always says that. In fact, he says nothing else, which is why I have him on ignore. Yet he also seems to bemoan the loss of some past America where things didn't used to be this way, which sets up sort of an odd paradox. If nothing changes, then why are things so different from how they used to be?

Something tells me that's a load of BS. Stop being a wus.

[MoFinz]

Websters defines Fair
marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
conforming with the established rules
consonant with merit or importance

Websters defines Punitive
inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment

Websters defines Equal
of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation
like for each member of a group, class, or society
regarding or affecting all objects in the same way

Now...of these 3, which most actually describes the tax rates espoused by Obama? And i'll go you one farther.....Romney was villified for not giving details of his plans....where are the details of the cuts that will help to balance the budget? It's all smoke and mirrors, and while everyones ooohing and aaahhhhing, our government steadily removes itself from the people and more and more becomes a puppet for the special interests across the spectrum.