Exactly what is the definition of "Fair Share?"

[renard_ruse]

And yet, if we reduced "defense spending" , ie: rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, we would probably have a budget surplus without having to raise taxation at all.

But no, it seems better to pour money in to improving shitholes on the other side of the globe rather than doing any sort of domestic work.

That would make too much sense.

 

[miles]

I need not "want" these things to be "librul fallacy" as you so eloquently state. Liberalism itself is fundamentally dishonest. Irrationality, fallacies and lies are the meat and potatoes of the philosophical basis of liberalism.

It offers utopian fantasies disguising the slavery that necessarily entails and when told honestly that they are being offered slavery, rational people reject it.

And, as usual, when faced with truth you cannot deny, the next effort is to obfuscate by throwing as much irrelevant information as possible hoping it diverts and distracts the reader. You've made an excellent attempt at it below.



First and foremost, what I stated was the Nazi is a contraction of National Socialism. Denying that National Socialism is socialism is a frantic effort to evade the truth once again.

Since virtually every practitioner of collectivism of whatever variant creates their own particular set of parameters for whatever they call it, i.e., socialism, communism, fascism, democratic socialism, etc., all variants of collectivism are fundamentally the same.

The three common tenets are: (1) negation of individual rights, (2) truth is whatever advances the agenda at the moment and (3) the ends justify the means.

The differences are facades, window dressing, propaganda to make them look unique and palatable.

Second, if you recall your history correctly, the communists joined with the National Socialists in Germany with the slogan "brown then red" meaning that the communists would aid the socialists [Nazis] in taking power and then the communists intended to usurp the power grabbed by the socialists with their support.



Once again, the fundamental truth I stated stands. The progressive income tax is a Communist vehicle. If not, why would Marx & Engels put it in their Manifesto? All this other extraneous and irrelevant info does is offer a fog or smokescreen probably in the hope of diverting attention from the simple truth.

Your one attempted insinuation that a progressive income tax is part of a free market system is utterly false. A free market necessarily entails private property rights and a progressive income tax subverts property rights by giving the political thugs the authority to steal the wealth of the populace. The Communist Manifesto is quite clear in its perspective on private property (cited below), i.e.
.



I'm not cherry picking facts. I simply stated a fact and apparently it is one that you would rather not have people grasp hence your efforts to obfuscate and confuse the issue. If there's intellectual fraud, the rational readers will understand who is the practitioner here.

I wonder; are you a proponent of FDR?

Final Score

Uncle Bill: 50
Throb: 0

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The super-duper rich pay less than they have at any time in the last 60 years. OTOH, we have more people than ever before who pay no taxes at all. IMO, neither group is paying their 'fair share'.

But given that I think the Government is spending too much I don't get too worked up about it. I won't support the idea of tax increases until I see some serious reductions from present spending levels.

for the love of god, that couldn't be further from the truth, this is spin-fluff from union/obama/and other anti-American groups. 60 years ago the tax code was as solid as Swiss cheese.

government is spending too much money, and the obama wants a police state

 

[Bob Waters]

for the love of god, that couldn't be further from the truth, this is spin-fluff from union/obama/and other anti-American groups. 60 years ago the tax code was as solid as Swiss cheese.

government is spending too much money, and the obama wants a police state

In 1950 the top bracket paid 91% on income earned over 400k. in 2011 it's 35% on income over 390k.

In real money terms 400k in 1950 is worth about 3.2 mil today.

So in 1950, someone earning the equal of 10 mil per year got to keep about 4.5 of it while today someone earning the same gets to keep about 6.4 of it.

Look it up.

The super rich pay much less today than they did in the 50's. The upper middle class and the sort of rich, however, take it in the pooper without lube in comparison though.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

In 1950 the top bracket paid 91% on income earned over 400k. in 2011 it's 35% on income over 390k.

In real money terms 400k in 1950 is worth about 3.2 mil today.

So in 1950, someone earning the equal of 10 mil per year got to keep about 4.5 of it while today someone earning the same gets to keep about 6.4 of it.

Look it up.

The super rich pay much less today than they did in the 50's. The upper middle class and the sort of rich, however, take it in the pooper without lube in comparison though.

and everyone paid that? no one had a "tax shelter" or investments that dropped their tax rate from the insane 91% down to 20%?

government doesn't need more money, government needs to go through withdrawal and get off the crack

also, in 1950 it wasn't illegal to move money overseas. which if one is smart, he or she would move assets to "government" wise countries

our corporate tax rate is insane as with our personal income tax rate

 

[Bob Waters]

and everyone paid that? no one had a "tax shelter" or investments that dropped their tax rate from the insane 91% down to 20%?

government doesn't need more money, government needs to go through withdrawal and get off the crack

also, in 1950 it wasn't illegal to move money overseas. which if one is smart, he or she would move assets to "government" wise countries

our corporate tax rate is insane as with our personal income tax rate

Not arguing with any of that but I stand by my position that the super duper rich - the Buffets and Jobs etc of the US pay much less in comparison to their total worth than does the middle class - and that is far from 'fair' which was the subject of the OP. The question was not whether or not the government was a bloated tick but what does 'fair share' mean.

I also said the bottom 40% of this country aren't paying their 'fair share' either. If you're going to have a government supported by taxes than EVERYONE needs skin in the game - from the poor to the rich.

You will also note that I expect substantial cuts to present level spending before even considering raising taxes on anyone.

The fact of the matter is spending needs to come under control AND outstanding government debt needs to be paid down. Fast.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Not arguing with any of that but I stand by my position that the super duper rich - the Buffets and Jobs etc of the US pay much less in comparison to their total worth than does the middle class - and that is far from 'fair' which was the subject of the OP. The question was not whether or not the government was a bloated tick but what does 'fair share' mean.

I also said the bottom 40% of this country aren't paying their 'fair share' either. If you're going to have a government supported by taxes than EVERYONE needs skin in the game - from the poor to the rich.

You will also note that I expect substantial cuts to present level spending before even considering raising taxes on anyone.

The fact of the matter is spending needs to come under control AND outstanding government debt needs to be paid down. Fast.

hopefully you will stay sane and fend off the STD from the other GB nuts.

personally, when income tax rates go up, its like we are punishing people for being successful.

 

[rustywilliams]

Taking your back.

Now that's just cruel.

 

[rustywilliams]

I can't speak for the right-wingers to whom you refer but as for myself, I bring it up because it is true.

Regarding the budget deficit, those who said it don't matter are those of the progressive/liberal mindset and are not "right-wingers" but are politically and philosophically left, i.e., authoritarian, totalitarian collectivists. Despite being a (R)republican, George Bush was at least partly of the leftist liberal mindset of the FDR sociofascist in that he sought to expand the collectivist welfare state via the prescription drug program.

The one inescapable fact they all ignore is the simple truth that there is no free lunch. Everything they want to give away as 'free' is paid for by someone but so long as the victim whose wealth is stolen for these collectivist fallacies and fantasies remain unseen, the myth can be perpetuated.

Just because someone has the Republican Party identification does not mean they have rejected the tenets of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism, e.g., John McCain aka Obama-lite. How do you suspect (R)republicans can continue to support the perpetuation of Social Security, Medicare, the welfare state, insidious government regulation and intervention into the economy when they have no constitutional authority to do so?

If you listen to the typical right-winger, the message they constantly preach is limited government which happens to the be the philosophy of the Founding Fathers as manifest in the Constitution.

As to being guilty of this, it's an absolute lie to suggest that the right-wingers are more guilty. But then, when you have taken the position that principles are irrelevant which liberals clearly did during the Clinton debacle, then you can state as true anything as you have so eloquently displayed here. You merely employ collectivist tenet #2, i.e., whatever you say is true since there is no objective measure and reality is irrelevant.

So you make statements that on the face if it aren't true, then make up your own definitions of the words within them, redefining whole groups of people so that you can claim your argument isn't nonsense.

You scorn liberal ideas as Utopian, yet there is no bigger fantasy than the Libertarians' idea of how the world should be. A world in which we all dance around, free as the birds, while everything is perfectly resolved by natural forces.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

frumpy rusty, lets face the facts. you do not believe that America is the land of opportunity and you want more government with more entitlements

remember, socialism is a mental illness. love of all things union's is a sign of mental illness. I can fix you, but you have to do the work

So you make statements that on the face if it aren't true, then make up your own definitions of the words within them, redefining whole groups of people so that you can claim your argument isn't nonsense.

You scorn liberal ideas as Utopian, yet there is no bigger fantasy than the Libertarians' idea of how the world should be. A world in which we all dance around, free as the birds, while everything is perfectly resolved by natural forces.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Final Score

Uncle Bill: 50
Throb: 0

A really unbiased judge here.

 

[RobDownSouth]

So you make statements that on the face if it aren't true, then make up your own definitions of the words within them, redefining whole groups of people so that you can claim your argument isn't nonsense.

You scorn liberal ideas as Utopian, yet there is no bigger fantasy than the Libertarians' idea of how the world should be. A world in which we all dance around, free as the birds, while everything is perfectly resolved by natural forces.

That's pretty much the libertarian Standard Operating Procedure around here, they continue to lie through their teeth and when things get really bad they call in their buddies to declare "victory" on their behalf.

Their methods are one good reason why libertarianism in the United States has rarely garnered much support beyond the upper single digit range.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

That's pretty much the libertarian Standard Operating Procedure around here, they continue to lie through their teeth and when things get really bad they call in their buddies to declare "victory" on their behalf.

Their methods are one good reason why libertarianism in the United States has rarely garnered much support beyond the upper single digit range.

so true! I love watching that Bernie Sanders, thinking he's totally delusional and mentally unable. maybe that's the problem with liberals? that they are mostly off his or her rocker just like Sanders?

 

[Unclebill]

So you make statements that on the face if it aren't true, then make up your own definitions of the words within them, redefining whole groups of people so that you can claim your argument isn't nonsense.

And just where did I make up any definitions? This looks like another attempt to evade reality or to obfuscate the entire argument or perhaps both.

You scorn liberal ideas as Utopian, yet there is no bigger fantasy than the Libertarians' idea of how the world should be. A world in which we all dance around, free as the birds, while everything is perfectly resolved by natural forces.

If this is your grasp of libertarian ideas, no wonder you made the ludicrous assertion above! Libertarian ideas are essentially the same as those of the Founding Fathers, i.e., individual freedom and individual responsibility, the diametric opposite of totalitarian government. It never promised or even suggested utopia, only freedom to achieve or fail on one's own and if one succeeded, the right to the fruits of his success.

 

[patrick1]

As much as you might dislike it, the fact is that if you strip away all the facades, the propaganda, the unique little quirks, all of these and all other variants of collectivism are based on thees three fundamental tenets:

1. Negation of individual rights
2. Truth is anything that advances the agenda of the collective at the moment
3. The end justifies the means

The second tenet explains [for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet] how liberals/progressives can make statements that are blatantly false from the objective perspective without no compunction whatsoever and tomorrow say the direct opposite of what they said yesterday.

It's the practice known from the days of the Soviet Union as propaganda, telling the subjects of the collective what they are to believe rather than the truth.

I think perhaps you are intentionally 'forgetting' the National Socialists in Germany under Hitler's reign. I seem to recall a little thing called The Holocaust during which a couple of million people were exterminated. Or maybe because the National Socialists in Germany didn't achieve murder on the grand scale of the socialists in Soviet Russia or the Chinese communists, you're dismissing their efforts. Or is that 'one tiny difference' the 20,000,000 or so margin between the slaughters in Germany and Soviet Russia? Both being socialist if you recall (USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

Or are you among the growing number today who outright deny that the holocaust in Nazi Germany actually occurred?

The end result of collectivism has always been destruction and it is now destroying America.

Collectivism always needs a scapegoat. In America, that scapegoat has become 'Big Business', the 'one percent', 'the rich'. To my recollection Karl Marx was the originator of using class warfare to persecute this scapegoat, FDR applied Marx's strategy marvelously during his reign of terror and the Democrat Party has been using it increasingly ever since FDR's magnificent success in turning one American against another with lies and distortion.

Chairman MaObama is simply practicing the tried and true policies and propaganda of his predecessors and philosophical mentors Marx, Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson to name a few.

For myself, I aim to be a scrupulous truth-teller, which includes following the evidence, even if it leads to conclusions I didn't expect or want. Are you? I don't see any evidence for the propositions you are making here, e.g. 'The end result of collectivism has always been destruction', 'Collectivism always needs a scapegoat', 'Truth is anything that advances the agenda of the collective at the moment'. These statements are rhetoric not evidential.

Of course I don't deny the Holocaust or that Nazis used the word 'socialist'. The significance of this is far less than you claim. The left-wing anarchists of the 1900s and 1910s regarded themselves as 'libertarians'. That doesn't mean that present-day right-wing libertarians are tarnished with their brush.

Patrick

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not arguing with any of that but I stand by my position that the super duper rich - the Buffets and Jobs etc of the US pay much less in comparison to their total worth than does the middle class - and that is far from 'fair' which was the subject of the OP. The question was not whether or not the government was a bloated tick but what does 'fair share' mean.

I also said the bottom 40% of this country aren't paying their 'fair share' either. If you're going to have a government supported by taxes than EVERYONE needs skin in the game - from the poor to the rich.

You will also note that I expect substantial cuts to present level spending before even considering raising taxes on anyone.

The fact of the matter is spending needs to come under control AND outstanding government debt needs to be paid down. Fast.

Taxing the bottom 40% at this point in history would just be ignorant. I mean we can do it if it'll make you feel better. But we as a society have decided that people who make less than x amount of money deserve section 8 housing, food stamps and should they take advantage of it help with college. What's the point in taking money from them only to give it right back to them? At best they wouldn't learn anything you want them to learn, If I make 100 dollars, you take 10 dollars and give me 15 at the very least I didn't learn that a 10% tax is a bad thing. I learned that at 10% tax is actualy a 5% raise) and a worst they realize that at step one and exploit the shit out of it.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

First and foremost, what I stated was the Nazi is a contraction of National Socialism. Denying that National Socialism is socialism is a frantic effort to evade the truth once again.

Or, as in your case, a frantic effort to corrupt the truth.

It’s the same tactic that Amicus uses; that to set yourself up as the arbiter of definitions and then fit historical fact into those definitions as suits your political agenda.

To mean anything, socialism has to be a desire for the means by which society produces things to be held in common, by the whole of that society, rather than by a clique of people who become very rich. By means of production and distribution, we are especially talking about agriculture and heavy, smokestack industries being owned by the state. The Nazi government just plain didn't do that, and anyone who told you they did is either ignorant or lying.

By the way, what are the sources for your conclusion? I surely didn't notice any.

Try reading THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH; William L. Shirer.

But, to summarize….

They never nationalized an industry. Even Jewish and minority property and businesses seized were sold to other businesses. The great arsenals at Danzig, Spandau, and Erfurt were all "privatized". The ball bearing factory’s at Schweinfurt and the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg were also private as were practically all companies in the "Reich".

Trade unions were banned before 1934. Agriculture was never centralized. If you read Speer, Fest, Bullock, Toland, or any of the other valid historians and researchers, you'll find the "National Socialist" party was heavily backed by capitalists, to include Blohm und Voss, Heinkel, Messerschmitt, I.G. Farben, A.E.G., Daimler-Benz, B.M.W., Agfa, Krupp, and many, many others.

Who was bank-rolling Hitler

In point of fact, and ALL the historians agree, Hitler came to power in a coalition with other right wing parties January 20th, 1933. And the Social Democrats who opposed him were mostly dead by 1935, or in concentration camps, if they weren't smart enough to leave.

Perhaps you’d like to tell us what happened to the leftist elements of the National “socialist” party; the likes of the Strasser brothers, Röhm?

Your premise is a ridiculous fiction.

Goebbels and Hess made jokes about the inclusion of what they called the "S" word in the party title, and Goebbels called it a recruiting tool and a "happy accident", which resulted from a ca.1918 merger with an Austro-Bavarian right wing party. Goebbels also claimed, spuriously, as it turned out, that the term had some "superior meaning" regarding changing society.

I find it terrifying that there are still people around willing to believe the party label used by the guys who started "The Big Lie" as a propaganda technique, and misinformed enough not to read the actual books from those who were there.

Instead you prefer (as already pointed out) to absurdly fixate on the party name.

Did you come to these conclusions whilst leaning on a bar somewhere?

No one seriously believes the Nazi’s were anything other than a right leaning, authoritarian, fascist regime.

Woof!

 

[Sean]

Hey, Unclebill, North Korea is democratic, right? I mean, it says it is right in the name.

 

[Bob Waters]

Taxing the bottom 40% at this point in history would just be ignorant. I mean we can do it if it'll make you feel better. But we as a society have decided that people who make less than x amount of money deserve section 8 housing, food stamps and should they take advantage of it help with college. What's the point in taking money from them only to give it right back to them? At best they wouldn't learn anything you want them to learn, If I make 100 dollars, you take 10 dollars and give me 15 at the very least I didn't learn that a 10% tax is a bad thing. I learned that at 10% tax is actualy a 5% raise) and a worst they realize that at step one and exploit the shit out of it.

Maybe with some but I suspect not all.

Now you have a large block of people who have nothing to lose by raising taxes - in fact you've got a block that will ALWAYS vote for higher taxes as a) it doesn't come out of their pockets and b) it keeps money going in to their pockets. If they're paying taxes at least they're realizing that some of 'their' money is going out to pay for some of the services they and others get.

People get into credit card debt because they see things they want and they use the card for them not internalizing that there's a cost involved. Taxes (should) provide that balance for the electorate that all that 'stuff' you want the government to do - fight a war, fix the roads, clean up the rivers, take care of the needy etc, comes with a price attached to it - and if you don't want to have to pay more in taxes then you may have to sacrifice some of those things.

Voters who don't pay taxes don't understand that. There is no personal cost to them.

Just like the anti-war movement of today is a shadow of the one in the 60's. There's no draft so there's no personal skin in the game. Our military is a professional one - ie volunteer. Average Joe 18 y/o doesn't have to worry about going off to the Stans to fight if he or she doesn't want to. Joe's mom is safe from that worry to hence no major anti-war movement even though opinion polls show not a ton of support for the war.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Hey, Unclebill, North Korea is democratic, right? I mean, it says it is right in the name.

As was the DDR, but, he’s already conveniently ignored that point.

Next I’m expecting him to tell us Theresienstadt was a typical example of a Nazis concentration camp. No chance of a lie or propaganda there, no siree!

Woof!

 

[EllieTalbot]

They never nationalized an industry. Even Jewish and minority property and businesses seized were sold to other businesses. The great arsenals at Danzig, Spandau, and Erfurt were all "privatized". The ball bearing factory’s at Schweinfurt and the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg were also private as were practically all companies in the "Reich"...

No one seriously believes the Nazi’s were anything other than a right leaning, authoritarian, fascist regime.

I've no opinion to offer on the greater topic here, but I do happen to have some contradictory information on this. The Nazis were an ideologically confused bunch and were socialists, but not, as this article puts it, socialists in the "proletariat" sense. They ended up favoring a "middle-class" socialism. What they principally hated about the kind of socialist/Marxist movements they put down were the cultural aspects of them. The article is a very astute assessment of the Nazi mood and agenda, and it was written in 1933.

Despite that, Nazi Germany is still popularly misconstrued as capitalistic, when it really wasn't. George Reisman, Ph.D. and Professor of Economics at Pepperdine is among those who have addressed the topic, citing here the work of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist who was exiled to Geneva during the Nazi occupation:

"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

Everything had to be approved of and set by the totalitarian Reich. That's not capitalism.

Vocal in Vienna,
Ellie

 

[Bob Waters]

As was the DDR, but, he’s already conveniently ignored that point.

Next I’m expecting him to tell us Theresienstadt was a typical example of a Nazis concentration camp. No chance of a lie or propaganda there, no siree!

Woof!

The confusion many have with the issue is that the 20th Century examples of socialist societies all have a dictator at it's head so people confuse the idea of socialism - which refers more to economics - with dictatorship. You conceivably COULD have a socialist democracy but I can't think of any examples.

In a nutshell:
Socialism = The State owns all means of production.
Nazism/Fascism = means of production are privately owned but the state dictates what is produced and how much.

Both are planned economies. We have neither in the US - nor in any of the 'socialist' Euro nations for that matter. What tends to get called 'socialism' now are 'social programs' - ie.e welfare etc. That isn't socialism, it's something else.

 

[LadyFairfax]

No one seriously believes the Nazi’s were anything other than a right leaning, authoritarian, fascist regime.

You cannot be a radical right wing fascist. The ideologies are opposites.

Although the term right wing did not exist in those days, I am using today's definition, as one who desires a totally free market without government intervention at any level.

**

Also, which part of taking a business away from political enemies and giving control of it to a party member is consistent with Free Market politics?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Final Score

Uncle Bill: 50
Throb: 0

You need to apply you some Throb math...

$0*$1.33% = ∑$100.33

∴ You lose...

A_J

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068
Where Arizona begins with a consonant just like Mexico, ∴ Vette is stupid....

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Throb let some botched math slide right past him in another thread that i cunt be arsed to look for.