why do Democrats HATE people keeping more of their $$$?

[kalm]

The fairtax is interesting if it can produce enough revenue. But the problem doesn't appear to be people not willing to work. Worker productivity has continued to rise for quite awhile now. The reason people don't pay taxes is wages. So if the wealthy - who would benefit the most from a fairtax - kept more of their income, they would pay the bottom 50% enough to afford to take on more of the tax burden? The wealthy would create enough demand for the bottom 50% to pay more in taxes and still be able to afford investing in healthcare and their kids education, both of which sustain if not increase productivity?

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of producing enough revenue to sustain the current levell of government. We should be thinking of fairness, and it is not fair to have a small percentage of the population carry the preponderance of the load while a large percentage votes itself a free or nearly free ride. The tax system should be re-designed to redistribute the load. If you are going to vote to keep government at its current level, it's fair that you pay an equal share of what it costs to do that.

Of course that wouldn't happen. If most people had to pay their fair share of what it costs to sustain the level of government we have they wouldn't tolerate maintaining the level of government we have. They'd demand that it be reduced.

Class warfare!!!

A whole bunch of government spending directly benefits the rich as well and in many instances grows their wealth.

[native]

http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fairtax is interesting if it can produce enough revenue. But the problem doesn't appear to be people not willing to work. Worker productivity has continued to rise for quite awhile now. The reason people don't pay taxes is wages. So if the wealthy - who would benefit the most from a fairtax - kept more of their income, they would pay the bottom 50% enough to afford to take on more of the tax burden? ...

Your question is irrelevant. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Your excuse for the bottom 50% not paying taxes is not true. The reason they pay no taxes is that they have ben bought off by pandering politicians.

[kalm]

The fairtax is interesting if it can produce enough revenue. But the problem doesn't appear to be people not willing to work. Worker productivity has continued to rise for quite awhile now. The reason people don't pay taxes is wages. So if the wealthy - who would benefit the most from a fairtax - kept more of their income, they would pay the bottom 50% enough to afford to take on more of the tax burden? ...

Your question is irrelevant. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Your excuse for the bottom 50% not paying taxes is not true. The reason they pay no taxes is that they have ben bought off by pandering politicians.

So you'd be ok with the working poor still paying no taxes as long as they received less services? Something tells me that to a certain extent, government services are what keep the pitch forks in the shed (and as I said earlier, productivity high).

Every class has been bought off by pandering politicians. Is their a poll that shows who the non tax payers vote for?

[native]

Your question is irrelevant. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Your excuse for the bottom 50% not paying taxes is not true. The reason they pay no taxes is that they have ben bought off by pandering politicians.

So you'd be ok with the working poor still paying no taxes as long as they received less services? Something tells me that to a certain extent, government services are what keep the pitch forks in the shed (and as I said earlier, productivity high).

Every class has been bought off by pandering politicians. Is their a poll that shows who the non tax payers vote for?

I am OK with everyone receiving fewer services, and with poor people paying less in taxes, but I am not OK with anyone except the severely handicapped paying ZERO in taxes. Everyone who has something to contribute must pull a share of the load.

Social Security and Medicare aside, the people with pitchforks, by and large, and not the same people who want something for nothing.

[kalm]

So you'd be ok with the working poor still paying no taxes as long as they received less services? Something tells me that to a certain extent, government services are what keep the pitch forks in the shed (and as I said earlier, productivity high).

Every class has been bought off by pandering politicians. Is their a poll that shows who the non tax payers vote for?

I am OK with everyone receiving fewer services, and with poor people paying less in taxes, but I am not OK with anyone except the severely handicapped paying ZERO in taxes. Everyone who has something to contribute must pull a share of the load.

Social Security and Medicare aside, the people with pitchforks, by and large, and not the same people who want something for nothing.

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of this, but if 50% don't make enough to pay federal income tax, has it occurred to you that perhaps some of them don't really want something for nothing, there just aren't enough good paying jobs?

And do you lump profitable businesses and individuals who pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than joe q. public or who receive subsidies in with this group as well?

[native]

I am OK with everyone receiving fewer services, and with poor people paying less in taxes, but I am not OK with anyone except the severely handicapped paying ZERO in taxes. Everyone who has something to contribute must pull a share of the load.

Social Security and Medicare aside, the people with pitchforks, by and large, and not the same people who want something for nothing.

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of this, but if 50% don't make enough to pay federal income tax, has it occurred to you that perhaps some of them don't really want something for nothing, there just aren't enough good paying jobs?

And do you lump profitable businesses and individuals who pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than joe q. public or who receive subsidies in with this group as well?

Yes. Unless they are disabled and unable to improve their own situation I lump them all together.

Everyone who is not disabled should contribute at least a token amount beyond their own FICA taxes to the public kitty. 90% of the 50% who "don't make enough to pay taxes" make enough to contribute someting in federal income taxes but have been bought off by politicians. "Good paying jobs" should result from hard work and preparation, not from government largesse and political paoyola. There is a clear correlation between expanded unemployment benefits and potentially employable workers waiting for "good paying jobs."

The whole corrupt system destroys initiative and jobs. If the government and unions would stop corrupting the market and get out of the way, there would be a lot more "good paying jobs."

[BlueHen86]

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of this, but if 50% don't make enough to pay federal income tax, has it occurred to you that perhaps some of them don't really want something for nothing, there just aren't enough good paying jobs?

And do you lump profitable businesses and individuals who pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than joe q. public or who receive subsidies in with this group as well?

Yes. Unless they are disabled and unable to improve their own situation I lump them all together.

Everyone who is not disabled should contribute at least a token amount beyond their own FICA taxes to the public kitty. "Good paying jobs" should result from hard work and preparation, not from government largesse and political paoyola. There is a clear correlation between expanded unemployment benefits and potentially employable workers waiting for "good paying jobs."

Perhaps. But my guess is that a lot of the people complaining about it have never been unemployed, and if they became unemployed would do the same as the people they are complaining about.

It's a lot easier to tell the unemployed person to take the job making french fries at McDonald's than it is to actually take the job yourself when you find yourself out of work.

[native]

Yes. Unless they are disabled and unable to improve their own situation I lump them all together.

Everyone who is not disabled should contribute at least a token amount beyond their own FICA taxes to the public kitty. "Good paying jobs" should result from hard work and preparation, not from government largesse and political paoyola. There is a clear correlation between expanded unemployment benefits and potentially employable workers waiting for "good paying jobs."

Perhaps. But my guess is that a lot of the people complaining about it have never been unemployed, and if they became unemployed would do the same as the people they are complaining about.

It's a lot easier to tell the unemployed person to take the job making french fries at McDonald's than it is to actually take the job yourself when you find yourself out of work.

You are absolutely correct, bluehen!

But if we eliminated the government largesse, union contracts were eliminated, and everyone took whatever jobs were available, then the economy would improve, growth would return, and more good jobs would become available.

[MSUDuo]

The problem here is the definition of "rich." The Obamites want to define it at $250K. That's hardly "rich," especially in most urban areas.

Set it at about $5M, and then we're talking.

$250k is more than enough for anyone to live on. It is considered wealthy

[CID1990]

The problem here is the definition of "rich." The Obamites want to define it at $250K. That's hardly "rich," especially in most urban areas.

Set it at about $5M, and then we're talking.

$250k is more than enough for anyone to live on. It is considered wealthy

Not for you to decide.

Or anyone else, for that matter.

[catamount man]

thank you CID1990. Liberals love to determine and the $250k mark, yet I guarantee you that the Hollywood and Washington elitists wouldn't dare "lower" themselves to that income level on any given day. So fed up with the liberal Robin Hood mentality.

[kalm]

Perhaps. But my guess is that a lot of the people complaining about it have never been unemployed, and if they became unemployed would do the same as the people they are complaining about.

It's a lot easier to tell the unemployed person to take the job making french fries at McDonald's than it is to actually take the job yourself when you find yourself out of work.

So would you make unions illegal? What would happen to wages if you did?

You are absolutely correct, bluehen!

But if we eliminated the government largesse, union contracts were eliminated, and everyone took whatever jobs were available, then the economy would improve, growth would return, and more good jobs would become available.

[MSUDuo]

$250k is more than enough for anyone to live on. It is considered wealthy

Not for you to decide.

Or anyone else, for that matter.

Didn't say it was. But to say that this country doesn't have a problem with a wealth distribution is sad. Even as a conservative Republican for the most part, something needs to be done. I can't even claim to begin to know where that starts or what it contains but as long the rich get richer and the poor get poorer(is that a word?) this country will continue to go down the tube.

[MSUDuo]

thank you CID1990. Liberals love to determine and the $250k mark, yet I guarantee you that the Hollywood and Washington elitists wouldn't dare "lower" themselves to that income level on any given day. So fed up with the liberal Robin Hood mentality.

Yeah, because I am sure that the conservatives in DC would lower themselves to that level as well.

I say the hell to the people who sit on their butts and continue to take government money knowing what they are doing. But there are far too many good people who work 50-70 hours a week just to get by. I am about to become one and I am going to have a 4 year college degree in a good profession. We haven't seen nothing yet for this country and economy.

[CID1990]

thank you CID1990. Liberals love to determine and the $250k mark, yet I guarantee you that the Hollywood and Washington elitists wouldn't dare "lower" themselves to that income level on any given day. So fed up with the liberal Robin Hood mentality.

Yeah, because I am sure that the conservatives in DC would lower themselves to that level as well.

I say the hell to the people who sit on their butts and continue to take government money knowing what they are doing. But there are far too many good people who work 50-70 hours a week just to get by. I am about to become one and I am going to have a 4 year college degree in a good profession. We haven't seen nothing yet for this country and economy.

You must be referring to welfare and AFDC.

I know a lot of people who are well over the 250K mark and they hardly sit on their butts and accept government money. They work a lot harder (and more hours) than I do, that's for sure.

[HI54UNI]

$250k is more than enough for anyone to live on. It is considered wealthy

Not for you to decide.

Or anyone else, for that matter.

And the problem is that $250,000 or whatever other arbitrary number you pick is much different in different places. $250,000 in LA is a lot different than $250,000 in small town Iowa.

[SuperHornet]

The problem here is the definition of "rich." The Obamites want to define it at $250K. That's hardly "rich," especially in most urban areas.

Set it at about $5M, and then we're talking.

$250k is more than enough for anyone to live on. It is considered wealthy

By whom?

Who sets the definitions has a lot to do with the truth value of a LOT of stuff, if not everything. This is NOT a self-evident thing.

[houndawg]

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of producing enough revenue to sustain the current levell of government. We should be thinking of fairness, and it is not fair to have a small percentage of the population carry the preponderance of the load while a large percentage votes itself a free or nearly free ride. The tax system should be re-designed to redistribute the load. If you are going to vote to keep government at its current level, it's fair that you pay an equal share of what it costs to do that.

Of course that wouldn't happen. If most people had to pay their fair share of what it costs to sustain the level of government we have they wouldn't tolerate maintaining the level of government we have. They'd demand that it be reduced.

Class warfare!!!

A whole bunch of government spending directly benefits the rich as well and in many instances grows their wealth.

It's a different story when the wealthy or the military get government hand outs.

[kalm]

Class warfare!!!

A whole bunch of government spending directly benefits the rich as well and in many instances grows their wealth.

It's a different story when the wealthy or the military get government hand outs.

But dammit hounding, they're the providers!

[houndawg]

Providing stuff the Pentagon doesn't want is welfare.

[native]

So would you make unions illegal? What would happen to wages if you did?

You are absolutely correct, bluehen!

But if we eliminated the government largesse, union contracts were eliminated, and everyone took whatever jobs were available, then the economy would improve, growth would return, and more good jobs would become available.

Man, kalm, you have got to learn how to do the quotes properly!

My quote starts with, "You are absolutely correct..." The preceding line was from someone else.

But to answer the question from the preceding line, work and wages should be aligned to their market value, not by some idiotic bureaucrat or union boss.

Public employee unions are an absolute conflict of interest and should be eliminated. Voluntary private sector unions and every other form of voluntary association should be encouraged, but right-to-work and individual laborer empowerment should be the law of the land, without exception. No worker should be dependent on the government, the union or for that matter, the corporation (benefits portability).

People who want to make more money need to prepare themselves to work harder, work smarter, and add more value for their customers, whoever those customers may be. The free market is WAY more democratic, more fair, more efficient and in the final result produces far more social justice for a greater number of people than the government or unions can ever hope to provide.

The only exception is monopolies, which skewer the market and must not be allowed to exist.

[AZGrizFan]

The problem here is the definition of "rich." The Obamites want to define it at $250K. That's hardly "rich," especially in most urban areas.

Set it at about $5M, and then we're talking.

$250k is more than enough for anyone to live on. It is considered wealthy

Fuck you, commie. You keep flippin' yer burgers and having money envy.