Tired of 47% not paying any taxes? Shame on us...

False. The article is from Heritage, but the data included in the article is from the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Urban Housing and Development. The citations are clear.

You are changing your argument. You originally said, "And just how do you expect the poor to give more when they've barley got anything more to give?". I proved that the data clearly shows that the poor afford (and buy) many luxuries. Hence, they can afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

 

they deserve to have luxuries !!!!

 

LOL! Right on. They deserve to have others pay for their luxuries: It's the American way.

 

First of all, supply and demand will achieve equilibrium if the federal government stops interfering with it, and, due to central banking, we have not had a true free market system for a very long time. Second, YOUR side wants increasely more federal government involvement in the markets, thereby only further skewing the true cost of labor. Finally, my initial question remains: Who died and gave YOU the authority to determine who is "adequately compensation" and who is not?

You're right in one sense. Due to government intervention and central banking, a true free market does not exist, and those getting minimum wage may be significantly overpaid, since we are not letting a free market determine their true value of labor.

It was YOU who inferred that you had this authority. I, on the other hand, would never claim (or want) this authority, since I know that only the free market can determine the true cost of labor.

This is evidence of absolutely nothing. Your graphs have nothing to do with our argument. Corporate profits have increased, but you neglect that corporations are now coerced by the federal government to cover more and more healthcare for its employees, not to mention increased corporate taxes and cost of business due to regulations. So even though corporate profits are increasing relative to personal profits, the graphs do not account the increased cost of business that corporates are faced with in modern times nor do the graphs account for the increased costs of healthcare (amongst other employee costs) that the corporates are paying for its employees.

Lastly, the graphs do not look at small businesses, which account for a significant amount of jobs in the USA.

Either way, the graphs have little to do with our argument.

Well, if we look at the graph titled "Growing Gap Between Productivity and Pay", it seems that initially things were unsustainable, since real hourly compensation was equal to output per hour. This is not realistic, regardless of the profession. For example, the money that I make for the business that I work for is about 60% more than my personal salary (on average). I see no problem with this, however, since I feel that it is easier to work regular hours for a company than to go into business for myself. Also, the company pays for my health insurance.

This growing "gap" referred to above has nothing to do with productivity of the working class vs. CEOs. It has everything to do with the increasing cost of business. You certainly cannot compare the cost of business today with 1947 (yet this is exactly what you are doing).

Not always, but I will certainly agree to this point in general (I say "not always" because certain jobs do not directly lead to profit for a company, such as a secretary or janitor). It also shouldn't take a graph to understand that, to run a business in modern times (with the ever-increasing amount of regulations), requires more and more money. Where do you think this money comes from? It's folk like you who advocate for increasing in corporate taxes. Where do you think this money comes from? That's right, they get it from both their customers and from their workers.

Obviously workers make money from their employers. It should be equally obvious that in order to stay fiscally sound, a company's output per hour MUST exceed a company's real hourly compensation for its employees (otherwise the company would go out of business VERY quickly). It should thus be obvious that with increasing taxes and regulations, we will see an increase in the gap between output per hour and real hourly compensation for employees, since the money to pay for these regulations must come from somewhere.

There is nothing wrong with profits, because we are all profiting from one another. This is how capitalism is supposed to work. I work and make a salary and bonus, and the company that I work for makes money off my labor. The output of my labor exceeds my salary, but my employer provides me services, such as health insurance, outside of my salary base salary and bonus. Also, this gap between the output of my labor and my salary allows the company to grow and expand.

If I wanted to keep 100% of the output of my labor, I (like anyone else) have the option of going to work for myself.

 

Equality in the sense that the same rules that apply to Citizen A applies to Citizen B. Since we were talking about federal taxes, I thought it was obvious that the equality that I was referring to meant that Citzen A, Citzen B, and Citizen X, should pay the same amount of federal taxes (or at least at the same rate of taxation). That would be true equality.

Regarding "labor opportunity" and "prosperity," then certainly ALL of us have equal access to both. Just know that "equal opportunity" is not the same as "equal outcomes."

My defintion is the same as the dictionary definition of the term.

You are advocating that some citizens pay a disproportionate amount more in federal taxes than other purely based on income. Hence, you clearly do not believe in fairness and equality. Fairness and equality means that we treat everyone EQUALLY, and do not discriminate. Yet, this is exactly what you are doing. You discriminate against a class of people based on their income.

You're right: The poor definitely benefit much more from the federal government, since programs like Medicaid, welfare, foodstamps, etc are targeted specifically for the poor.

However, I was looking at the in a more general sense to simplify the matter. For instance, the armed services protect America as a whole (it would be impossible for the US armed services to protect only one class of people and not another). Another example is interstate roads. Goods travelled on these roads benefit all of us equally (the poor and the rich pay the same for products transported on these roads). Thus, in the general sense, the federal government provides services that are supposed to benefit people equally, regardless of wealth. Hence, we should all pay the same in federal taxes, regardless of wealth. That is my argument.

You were advocating that we throw out the Constitution and penalize the "rich class" for being rich and subject them to a different set of federal taxes than the rest of the the population. Thus, your view was the epitome of fascism.

This is absolutely true. At what income does one cease to be "upper-middle-class" and become "rich?" Of course, there is no value.

Unless you are a wilderness man and live in the forest sustaining yourself by hunting and gathering and have no manufactured possessions, then I certainly do believe that, for the most part, everyone benefits equally from interstate roads, since we all buy products that are transported via these roads.

Like I said, we all buy products that are transported on these roads. A business is not an individual, so please at least compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Wrong. The purpose of the army is to protect the country as a whole: Title 10 US Code, Section 3062 (a): an Army that is capable of preserving the peace and security, and providing for the defense, of the US, supporting national policy, implementing national objectives, and overcoming any nations responible for aggresive acts that imperil the peace and security of the US.. As you can see, the protection of individual property is not mentioned.

Also, inasmuch as people already pay sales tax and property tax, I fail to see your point here.

Exactly. It would be wrong for me, you, or anyone to even attempt to assess a value for one human life versus another. Thus, we can simply state that life is precious, and no one life is more valuable than another. Hence (again), the armed services protects everyone equally, since it protects the country as a whole.

Such an assertion is foolish. First of all, the armed forces do NOT serve to protect property (Title 10 US Code, Section 3062 makes no mention of "property"). Second, people already pay sales tax and property tax on their valuables and home respectively.

If you disproportionately place higher taxes on one group versus other groups of citizens, then the group that you single out loses the right to be treated as equals with their fellow citizens.

 

I was referring to the data within the article that was from the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Urban Housing and Development. You have cited graphs from the same sources, so this should be perfectly fair.

I'm not saying that they should "give up" anything. Rather, they should have no excuse not to be able to afford paying their fare share of federal taxes. My contention was that the fact that the poor can afford many luxuries means that they should be paying taxes like the rest of us.

You're asking the wrong question. You should instead be asking: How much money does a refrigerator, multiple televisions, stove/oven, microwave, air condition, clothes washer, DVD player/VCR, cable or satallite TV, clothes dryer, cell phone, cordless phone, ceiling fan, personal computer, internet service, printer, surround sound system, separate freezer, video game system, second DVD player, big screen TV, photocopier, and hot tub translate into?

Answer: A hell of a lot.

In all seriousness, it's not about the amount of annual tax revenue. It about the fact that these people pay little to no taxes, yet are able to afford the same luxuries as everyone else who have to pay a boatload of taxes. It's about fairness.

Also (again in all seriousness) the revenue would actually be substantial if the poor paid just a little bit of taxes (let's say the cost of a computer and printer). If we estimate the adult population to be 220 million people (based on 2008 census data). Next, we take into account a 8.6% unemployment rate and get 190 million working adults. If 47% of this group pays no taxes, we get 89 million people paying no taxes. Next, let's be generous and excuse the most destitute of this group (bottom 20%). We then are left with about 70 million people. Lastly, lets estimate the cost of the computer and printer to be $1000. We get a total of $70 billion in annual revenue that can easily be generated if these people pay a small fraction of their fair share.

 

Not if someone else has to buy it for them. I am all for people having the essentials which include food, shelter, clean water, ect...

I would even go as far to say a phone and tv is essential in the united states.

Someone that is living off of MY MONEY have no right to have better than I have. They deserve no luxuries, no plasma screens, no new car.

One day, in liberal utopia, it will be more effective to live off of welfare than it will be to actually have to do anything useful, it will be grand fun until the real world knocks and the evil rich leave this entitlement minded country for greener pastures. Then who is gonna support your lazy welfare ass.

I swear some of you people need to have their heads examined, you are trying to force this place that cannot exist and have no qualms about destroying life for those of us that struggle and work for the items we have. .
I just really do not understand it.

 

the same percentage as me.

 

One has to remember that while the wealthy recieve the benefits of an Armed Forces that protects their interests and liberty, the wealthy seldom serve or have served (there are exceptions). They leave service up to the poor and middle classes.

Many of the Republican canidates talk about how "Class Warfare" is un-American. I actually see it as totally American. Our Forefathers sought to break away from England because England saw the American Colonies as Second-Class Citizens of the British Empire. Ben Franklin was not a revolutionary until he went to the English Court and realized that Americans would never be treated as equals.

America is supposed to be about equality. It is not about everyone having equal money, but an equal chance to succeed and make something of yourself. I am not for taking money away from people who have money. I am, however, for raising taxes on the wealthy during a time of crisis. Just like before, when things settle down taxes can be lowered.

It is also about looking at a system that rewards profit over all other things. Want more profit? Let's layoff a few thousand workers just to increase our profits. While we do that, we are raking in billions more that we would have made even if we kept those workers. It is about a system that does not see workers as people, but as tools and disposable resources.

 

start a business and pay as many "people" as much as you'd like.

If a business can lay off a few thousand workers, then it was paying a few thousand unneeded "people" to do nothing.

Advocating waste is stupid. Business is for producing goods and services for those that wish to purchase them. It does not exist simply for creating jobs.

 

then why are they not producing the goods themselves, and keeping the profits ?

 

why did they give the means to the owners ?

 

If you drop out of high school, or refuse to get a secondary education either in a trade school or college. You have already lost the race and will never have an equal opportunity to succeed or even achieve middle class status.

That is just the facts of life.

Wealth inequality will continue to grow and there is nothing you or Obama or liberalism in general can do to stop it because the gap is not between rich and poor, it is between educated and uneducated. The educated people are basically crushing uneducated people on income mobility while uneducated people are being left behind in the dust of advanced technological progress to flip our burgers, bag our groceries and wash our cars for 8 bucks an hour.

That is what is happening. The uneducated "stupids" of America are losing the rat race for a piece of the wealth pie.

WTF is this "proft over people" deal liberals go on about? If I run a company of 5000 workers and only 2500 are necessary and the rest are dead weight.. they need to go! That is how the world works! You don't just keep useless people employed. Geez! You act like once you have scored a job at an employer then you have a human right to be employed for life or something.

 

If a rising tide can lift all boats, why not solve official poverty by analogy and generate more tax revenue through that increase in the circulation of money?

 

Do you realize that you just stated that the workers don't own their own labor?

 

Because scooping water from one side of the boat and dumping it on the other side does nothing to increase the tide level.

Government intervention in the economy just moves the money that is already there around. It doesn't increase the actual economy.

 

I am not sure why you believe that, when increasing the circulation of money in money based markets is something supply side economics is well suited for; especially when the government can create fiat money out of thin air.