RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:31 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:54 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12744
Location: Sunny South Florida
I don't believe I personally am entitled to the wealth of people wealthier than me, but that isn't what taxation is about or for. I'm not saying there isn't a redistributive function, but that's an oversimplification.

No, rather, I believe taxation is the rent paid on the use of societal infrastructure. The wealthiest use more (roads, communication, resources, etc.), they should pay more rent. As suggested in the OP.

It really is quite that simple.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
Unfortunately, the tax system is clearly used to promote and/or discourage various behaviors.

Often this is intentional (i.e. investment, encourage families, environmental, home ownership, etc.) Sometimes the result is unintentional....And commonly it is the result of powerful groups (and power is often, but not always money and contributions) promoting a particular agenda and smaller interests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 13179
I don't believe I personally am entitled to the wealth of people wealthier than me, but that isn't what taxation is about or for. I'm not saying there isn't a redistributive function, but that's an oversimplification.

No, rather, I believe taxation is the rent paid on the use of societal infrastructure. The wealthiest use more (roads, communication, resources, etc.), they should pay more rent. As suggested in the OP.

It really is quite that simple.

This isn't about you or me being entitled to the wealth of wealthy people but about the redistribution of wealth via taxes to pay for the infrastructure/services governments provide throughout the country. It's a policy recognizing wealth distribution is grossly uneven so the burden of taxes should be borne by those making the most money or who own the wealth.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I don't believe I personally am entitled to the wealth of people wealthier than me, but that isn't what taxation is about or for. I'm not saying there isn't a redistributive function, but that's an oversimplification.

No, rather, I believe taxation is the rent paid on the use of societal infrastructure. The wealthiest use more (roads, communication, resources, etc.), they should pay more rent. As suggested in the OP.

It really is quite that simple.


People try to make sense of taxation. I remember a college professor who taught tax once told me once that if one expected taxes to be logical or fair that that person should pick a different profession. Like you I believe taxes are the fee we pay for government. Fee for service. It is not unreasonable or unpatriotic to question either the services we get or the fees we pay. As citizens and taxpayers, we and our elected representatives and the employees we hire to administer government should all be focused on the services provided and whether those services are delivered effectively and economically. To do otherwise invites waste and inefficiency. Personally, I do not think that anyone should be taxed more than 40% of his/her gross income. JMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

People try to make sense of taxation. I remember a college professor who taught tax once told me once that if one expected taxes to be logical or fair that that person should pick a different profession. Like you I believe taxes are the fee we pay for government. Fee for service. It is not unreasonable or unpatriotic to question either the services we get or the fees we pay. As citizens and taxpayers, we and our elected representatives and the employees we hire to administer government should all be focused on the services provided and whether those services are delivered effectively and economically. To do otherwise invites waste and inefficiency. Personally, I do not think that anyone should be taxed more than 40% of his/her gross income. JMHO.

I believe the first thing we need to do is quit the corporate welfare. The government should not be able to take my taxes and give it to rich CEOs. It's all blackmail, graft and bribery.

But most government services ARE delivered economically. Medicare is still the most efficient system in America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I believe the first thing we need to do is quit the corporate welfare. The government should not be able to take my taxes and give it to rich CEOs. It's all blackmail, graft and bribery.

But most government services ARE delivered economically. Medicare is still the most efficient system in America.


Which rich CEO is getting a check from the government?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:33 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3902
I believe the first thing we need to do is quit the corporate welfare. The government should not be able to take my taxes and give it to rich CEOs. It's all blackmail, graft and bribery.

But most government services ARE delivered economically. Medicare is still the most efficient system in America.

yea some tend to lose sight that taxes are a collection peoples turning of a ratchet or dry walling or typing, or operating a machine and that giving away those things for no gain is like robbing them.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Which rich CEO is getting a check from the government?

Hundreds of them. We can start with the CEO of Foxconn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Hundreds of them. We can start with the CEO of Foxconn.

Really. The Federal Government is writing checks to the CEO of Foxconn. For what?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
Really. The Federal Government is writing checks to the CEO of Foxconn. For what?

State governments. Now, continue to play your stupid "I don't know what you're talking about" bullshit game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:40 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
State governments. Now, continue to play your stupid "I don't know what you're talking about" bullshit game.

So state governments are writing checks to CEO's? I find that a little hard to believe as well. In which state(s) do you pay income taxes? Do you think you have a right to tell states where you do not live and do not pay taxes how they should or should not spend their money. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but unless you live in my state, I don't think you have much say in how my state allocates its resources. That is up to the taxpayers and elected officials who live and work in my state. More to the point, we aren't spending "your" tax dollars when you pay no taxes here. Further as has often been pointed out to me on this board, once you write the check to the government, it ceases to be your money, it becomes the government's money.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Q
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
So state governments are writing checks to CEO's? I find that a little hard to believe as well. In which state(s) do you pay income taxes? Do you think you have a right to tell states where you do not live and do not pay taxes how they should or should not spend their money. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but unless you live in my state, I don't think you have much say in how my state allocates its resources. That is up to the taxpayers and elected officials who live and work in my state. More to the point, we aren't spending "your" tax dollars when you pay no taxes here. Further as has often been pointed out to me on this board, once you write the check to the government, it ceases to be your money, it becomes the government's money.

I LOVE it! Just throw your ethics and morals out to try to win an argument with a liberal! Hilarious!

I've paid taxes in LOTS of states, as I used to travel for a living! Bub, it's not just income taxes they give to CEOs! I can certainly guarantee you that I've paid taxes not only in your state, but in your city.

You guys don't REALLY believe what you espouse, do you? You SAY you want: a. a free market and b. keep government out of business!

But that's not what this is. It's the very OPPOSITE of that. It's the government taking sides in a market and subsidizing some businesses over other businesses. The small businesses get their tax money used against them to put themselves out of business! Now Republicans think that it's great that government bankrolls business, giving them free land, even bankrolling their payroll, and let them keep all the profits!

They are going to give Foxconn over three billion - $231,000 a job! For what? For Foxconn to immediately take all profits out of our country!

You must be proud to be a conservative.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Q
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I LOVE it! Just throw your ethics and morals out to try to win an argument with a liberal! Hilarious!

I've paid taxes in LOTS of states, as I used to travel for a living! Bub, it's not just income taxes they give to CEOs! I can certainly guarantee you that I've paid taxes not only in your state, but in your city.

You guys don't REALLY believe what you espouse, do you? You SAY you want: a. a free market and b. keep government out of business!

But that's not what this is. It's the very OPPOSITE of that. It's the government taking sides in a market and subsidizing some businesses over other businesses. The small businesses get their tax money used against them to put themselves out of business! Now Republicans think that it's great that government bankrolls business, giving them free land, even bankrolling their payroll, and let them keep all the profits!

They are going to give Foxconn over three billion - $231,000 a job! For what? For Foxconn to immediately take all profits out of our country!

You must be proud to be a conservative.


GoU,
You think because you pay some sales or hotel taxes in a state that buys you a say in how we allocate our resources. I don't think so. Those of us who live and work here pay far more than a transient who passes through here on business. We appreciate the business but that does not buy you a seat at the decision making table. Further FWIW, I don't give a damn what your opinion is regarding my ethics or morals. You and I have had some conversations and I have enjoyed the relationship but you don't know shit about me in that regard. I do not question your ethics or motivations and I would appreciate that you return the favor. We can have a conversation without personal attacks.

Finally, I do not represent "you guys". I have never said that government had no role to play in the economy or the market. I work in small business and I do not have a problem with state and local governments pursuing reasonable arrangements to attract businesses to my state or locality. My support for any deal depends upon the deal itself. I have no say in the Foxcomm deal. I live in Tenn - not Wisconsin. I am not going to tell those folks what to do with their money just as I am not interested in having them weigh in on how the State of Tennessee does it's business. That is up to the voters and elected officials within those states. If you want to outlaw states and local governments from making these types of deals, then you need to get a movement together and pass a law. But until that time I expect my state and locality to pursue any reasonable opportunity both internationally and domestically.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Q
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

GoU,
You think because you pay some sales or hotel taxes in a state that buys you a say in how we allocate our resources. I don't think so. Those of us who live and work here pay far more than a transient who passes through here on business. We appreciate the business but that does not buy you a seat at the decision making table. Further FWIW, I don't give a damn what your opinion is regarding my ethics or morals. You and I have had some conversations and I have enjoyed the relationship but you don't know shit about me in that regard. I do not question your ethics or motivations and I would appreciate that you return the favor. We can have a conversation without personal attacks.

Sorry, but I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in your deflecting. I like you Joe, but I do tire of your games. You're "I don't know what you're talking about" crap when you do, for instance.

Would you be happy if your state took your tax money to subsidize your competitor so that they could drive you out of business, for instance, selling products for less than you can produce them, because they get no taxes, free land and even have their payroll paid for by the state?

That's not conservatism. If you believe it is, then you aren't a conservative. The term of government and corporate power together is fascism.
Quote:
Finally, I do not represent "you guys". I have never said that government had no role to play in the economy or the market. I work in small business and I do not have a problem with state and local governments pursuing reasonable arrangements to attract businesses to my state or locality. My support for any deal depends upon the deal itself. I have no say in the Foxcomm deal. I live in Tenn - not Wisconsin. I am not going to tell those folks what to do with their money just as I am not interested in having them weigh in on how the State of Tennessee does it's business. That is up to the voters and elected officials within those states. If you want to outlaw states and local governments from making these types of deals, then you need to get a movement together and pass a law. But until that time I expect my state and locality to pursue any reasonable opportunity both internationally and domestically.

Sorry, you're dancing.

Let's just be sure you NEVER weigh in with an opinion on ANYTHING that ANY other state EVER does.

And, your argument is one the right has used a lot in history. Like "don't you damned northerners tell us how to treat our blacks!"

Sorry, this is the United States of America. What happens in one state affects all states. States are not sovereign nations.

You are wrong on this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Q
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Sorry, but I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in your deflecting. I like you Joe, but I do tire of your games. You're "I don't know what you're talking about" crap when you do, for instance.

Would you be happy if your state took your tax money to subsidize your competitor so that they could drive you out of business, for instance, selling products for less than you can produce them, because they get no taxes, free land and even have their payroll paid for by the state?

That's not conservatism. If you believe it is, then you aren't a conservative. The term of government and corporate power together is fascism.

Sorry, you're dancing.

Let's just be sure you NEVER weigh in with an opinion on ANYTHING that ANY other state EVER does.

And, your argument is one the right has used a lot in history. Like "don't you damned northerners tell us how to treat our blacks!"

Sorry, this is the United States of America. What happens in one state affects all states. States are not sovereign nations.

You are wrong on this one.


GoU,
When you frame a comment like CEO's get checks from the government then you are just repeating propaganda. Are state and local governments pursuing deals with corporations. Yep. But that benefits every shareholder, employee, supplier that is affiliated with the enterprise when it is up and running. You conveniently omit such facts. Does it make economic sense in every case. I doubt it but that is the nature of things. Not everything works as planned. And I generally frame my opinions as opinions. I generally don't tell other people how they should spend their money or allocate their resources. Your comment spoke of "YOUR" tax dollars. You have every right to weigh in on how "YOUR" tax dollars are spent. But unless you vote in my state we aren't spending your money. We are spending our money. You don't have to like it. That's the law. That's the constitution. How we decide to spend our money to pursue business opportunities which we believe benefit our citizens is our decision and violates nothing in the US Constitution. Your analogy comparing these matters to racial discrimination is as you like to say "weak sauce".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16868

Which rich CEO is getting a check from the government?


Every rich CEO around my age who is taking their social security benefits, just like I do.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Q
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:11 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16868

GoU,
When you frame a comment like CEO's get checks from the government then you are just repeating propaganda. Are state and local governments pursuing deals with corporations. Yep. But that benefits every shareholder, employee, supplier that is affiliated with the enterprise when it is up and running.


Reckon how much it actually benefits the average citizen who's in the bottom 50% of the country's wealth with an average net worth of $11,000 fucking dollars, compared with how it benefits the average corporate CEO.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16868

Personally, I do not think that anyone should be taxed more than 40% of his/her gross income. JMHO.


Too bad you don't give a shit about how the top 1% of the population has more wealth than the bottom 90% as much as you give a shit about this. I'm trying to remember how many times you've mentioned anything about wealth disparity compared with ragging about taxes like a typical American conservative. Not too many...if any that I can recall.

You either give a shit about how the doubling of net worth in this country since 2000 has all gone to the top 10% of the people, or you don't.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708

Too bad you don't give a shit about how the top 1% of the population has more wealth than the bottom 90% as much as you give a shit about this. I'm trying to remember how many times you've mentioned anything about wealth disparity compared with ragging about taxes like a typical American conservative. Not too many...if any that I can recall.

You either give a shit about how the doubling of net worth in this country since 2000 has all gone to the top 10% of the people, or you don't.


So how much of the top 1%'s wealth are the bottom 50% entitled to? I believe Sen Sanders recently proposed a wealth tax where those on the top would have a certain percentage of their wealth taxed. I found the sad thing about that proposal to be that those in favor could not see how such a tax would destroy the US Economy. It isn't as if the wealthy have the money buried in the back yard.

In fact most of their wealth is tied up in real estate or securities. Can you imagine what would happen to Apple or Microsoft if the billionaires whose wealth is tied up in those companies all of a sudden had to sell off their stock to pay a wealth tax. The result would be devastating and those most affected would be those of us in the middleclass or below.

As things like pension funds and mutual funds values would be destroyed. So it isn't about giving "a shit". It is about standing back and taking a pragmatic view on what the consequences of excessive taxation would be and whom it would really affect.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

So how much of the top 1%'s wealth are the bottom 50% entitled to? I believe Sen Sanders recently proposed a wealth tax where those on the top would have a certain percentage of their wealth taxed. I found the sad thing about that proposal to be that those in favor could not see how such a tax would destroy the US Economy. It isn't as if the wealthy have the money buried in the back yard.

In fact most of their wealth is tied up in real estate or securities. Can you imagine what would happen to Apple or Microsoft if the billionaires whose wealth is tied up in those companies all of a sudden had to sell off their stock to pay a wealth tax. The result would be devastating and those most affected would be those of us in the middleclass or below.

As things like pension funds and mutual funds values would be destroyed. So it isn't about giving "a shit". It is about standing back and taking a pragmatic view on what the consequences of excessive taxation would be and whom it would really affect.

When a rich man says he got rich through hard work, ask him whose.

Bill Gates is an excellent case in point. He did not create the original MS-DOS, and he stole the graphical interface for windows from Apple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:37 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3902
Detroit City Council approves $250M in taxpayer money for Dan Gilbert

Quote:
.............The request for $250 million represents Gilbert’s first raid on the state’s coffers using the laws created as part of the recently-approved "Gilbert Bills." As part of that package of laws, the state made up to $1 billion in taxpayer assistance available for Gilbert and other wealthy developers. Even though he’s seeking state money, Gilbert must also get approval from the Detroit City Council because his projects are located there.

Several residents like Brian Silverstein of the Charlevoix Village Association spoke during public comment and charged that council members wouldn't have supported giving a billionaire $250 million if the vote took place before this month's election. Silverstein called the proposal "grimy and unpalatable."

"I think you all need to think about his, and if you were voting on this before the election, then you wouldn't be here in January," another resident told council during public comment..................

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3902
claim is to create more jobs and therefore income tax but at the same time they are giving income tax away.


Dan Gilbert now wants $618M in state taxpayer money for his Detroit projects

Quote:
........Gilbert claims they projects will generate 24,000 new jobs and $673 million in new local tax revenue, though there’s question about the accuracy of his figures.

Much of money he's requesting is part of a $1 billion pot of taxpayer assistance available for Gilbert and other wealthy developers. State lawmakers allocated the funds when they approved the "Gilbert Bills" earlier this year. In doing so, the Legislature created a first-of-its-kind in Michigan arrangement in which residents pay their income tax to a corporation or billionaire instead of the government.

If Gilbert's request is approved by the MEDC in March — which is likely — then he would collect income tax from any resident or employee of a business that moves into his new buildings.

Most of the businesses and residents who will move into the buildings already exist, and they currently pay taxes to the state. Those taxes go to make road repairs, fund police, fund education, and so on.

Once the businesses and residents move into Gilbert's new buildings, their income tax would no longer go to the state — it would go to Gilbert, which would shrink the state’s tax base. That means few of the jobs and little of the state tax revenue in his buildings is new, contrary to his claims.
........

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
I believe the first thing we need to do is quit the corporate welfare. The government should not be able to take my taxes and give it to rich CEOs. It's all blackmail, graft and bribery.

But most government services ARE delivered economically. Medicare is still the most efficient system in America.


There is no such thing as corporate welfare.

A slight correction
In most not all cases the money spent on sports teams could be described as corporate welfare.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Last edited by glenfs on Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
When a rich man says he got rich through hard work, ask him whose.

Bill Gates is an excellent case in point. He did not create the original MS-DOS, and he stole the graphical interface for windows from Apple.


He did not steal it he bought it.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2681
Location: Oregon

He did not steal it he bought it.

He also "paid" for the programmer (not an employee of Microsoft) who created MS-DOS, but that's not the point...the point is, he did NOT create it. Partly IBM's fault for letting Microsoft be the source of MS-DOS, which soon was also re-"rented" by other computer manufacturers.

Apple allowed MS to copy some of the ideas in the Apple interface in exchange for supporting Microsoft Word. Not really "buying" Windows from Apple.

_________________
"When the rich take money from the poor it's called business, when poor people resist it's called violence." –Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group