Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:59 am

When it comes to taxes, I keep hearing that the rich ought to pay their "fair share".

What is a "fair share"?
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:06 am

Guess I would go back to Jesus who said, "Unto whom much is given, much shall also be required." "Fair share is always a subjective measure."
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby KeithE » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:15 am

Because the distribution of wages is so skewed to those who make the salaries decisions, the rich need to be taxed at a higher amount and even a higher rate. And they have been but they need to be made more progressive yet, imo.

The fact that the inequality has increased dramatically over the last 35 years means that the tax rates should reflect that change by increasing the rate for the top brackets - it has not, in fact that top rate has dropped.

Image

Image


“Fair" is subjective but the fairness can be judged by looking at the changes in our tax rates with time in response to the changes in inequality shown above. And the fact that many/most of the rich manage to avoid paying their designated (what some people term “fair”) tax amounts (by offshoring or paying capital gains instead of regular tax rates) shows more unfairness.

Hope this answers your “question”.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Sandy » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:39 am

I've heard it characterized in several different ways. One, that the percentage of spendable income of people in all tax brackets and all income levels be affected equally by the tax burden. That would include deductions and exemptions being allowed at the same percentages for all taxpayers. Two, that there be a single effective tax rate based on percentage of income, with no deductions or exemptions (similar to the Forbes "Flat Tax" proposal of several years back).

I've also heard proposals that tax rates be calculated based on their impact on, or use of the infrastructure they support. That would require a lot of complicated calculation, and it would make it hard to spread things out over time, and determine the difference in the level of benefit of things like education.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8194
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Jim » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:24 am

Dave Roberts wrote:Guess I would go back to Jesus who said, "Unto whom much is given, much shall also be required." "Fair share is always a subjective measure."


Money is not "given" by the government or other institution as if work or brain-power is not utilized to gain it. The Clinton/Sanders cabal would have it that there's such a thing as a silly "level playing field" when obviously some folks are much better than others at succeeding, constantly tilting the "playing field" in their favor. Fair Share is code for robbing the rich and giving the swag to the poor, the mod-lib approach. Actual “fair share” would seem to be that everyone pay the same percentage of income, notwithstanding all the built-in loopholes managed by Congress over the years and thus perfectly legal. Doubtlessly, everyone in this forum takes advantage of every one of them (the deductions, etc.). In the parable of the slothful servant, Jesus didn't castigate the rich employer (slave-owner in that day) but condemned the worker who didn't try to increase his already-rich employer's income, thus enhancing the tax revenue to Rome, whether “fair” or not. Fair share is what anyone says it is, meaning that it has no definition. I live month-to-month on a pension and don't give a fig as to how much anyone else can game the system for whatever is available legally...more power to them all. Mod-libbers love the caste-system, divisive but distinctive to the god DIVERSITY.
Jim
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:43 pm

Jim wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:Guess I would go back to Jesus who said, "Unto whom much is given, much shall also be required." "Fair share is always a subjective measure."


Money is not "given" by the government or other institution as if work or brain-power is not utilized to gain it. The Clinton/Sanders cabal would have it that there's such a thing as a silly "level playing field" when obviously some folks are much better than others at succeeding, constantly tilting the "playing field" in their favor. Fair Share is code for robbing the rich and giving the swag to the poor, the mod-lib approach. Actual “fair share” would seem to be that everyone pay the same percentage of income, notwithstanding all the built-in loopholes managed by Congress over the years and thus perfectly legal. Doubtlessly, everyone in this forum takes advantage of every one of them (the deductions, etc.). In the parable of the slothful servant, Jesus didn't castigate the rich employer (slave-owner in that day) but condemned the worker who didn't try to increase his already-rich employer's income, thus enhancing the tax revenue to Rome, whether “fair” or not. Fair share is what anyone says it is, meaning that it has no definition. I live month-to-month on a pension and don't give a fig as to how much anyone else can game the system for whatever is available legally...more power to them all. Mod-libbers love the caste-system, divisive but distinctive to the god DIVERSITY.


Jim, I can't believe you actually agreed with me that "fair" is subjective. Thanks!
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Jim » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:57 pm

KeithE wrote:Because the distribution of wages is so skewed to those who make the salaries decisions, the rich need to be taxed at a higher amount and even a higher rate. And they have been but they need to be made more progressive yet, imo.



Notwithstanding all the graphs, charts and other supposedly visual aids, “income inequality” is as much a non-starter as “fair tax rate.” Income inequality deals with dollar amounts with little or no reference to job-skills or job-importance. The progressives, (party of Sanders/Clinton) once called the Democrat Party, insists on the “level playing field,” which is the objective of socialism...think Soviet or Venezuela. In the 1940s-60s, the wealthy coughed up about 90% of income in order to pay off WWII debt and the Marshall Plan. In the 1960s, the bottom rate was about 14%. During the Reagan years, the rates were down to 28% and 15%, respectively, by 1988, setting the stage for Prexy Bubba to enjoy a windfall of immense proportions, although he managed to foul his own nest (well, not his but his successors) with NAFTA and WTO, as well as raise taxes again. I was once a jack-hammer operator working on gas lines Texas to Pennsylvania and made a fair wage for all the sweat but certainly not as much as the head honcho of Brown-Root or even the job-boss. Notwithstanding Jefferson's take, people are NOT born equal and do not function with the same work/talent effort so they are never equal until they die and leave with what they were born with – nothing. The party of Hillary/Bernie aims for re-writing the Constitution so, as Obama would have it, the wealth be re-distributed indiscriminately. I doubt you would like that.
Jim
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:35 am

Charts... definitions... mean nothing if it is subjective.

That brings us back to the original question.

Obviously, it can not be answered in a manner which is constructive to a tax discussion. All we end up with charts that one person likes... opinions another person rests on and a talking point for liberals who want more of my money.

For those rich liberals who like paying their fair share, tell them to quit taking tax breaks and deductions and pay their fair share. or... Is taking all the deductions they can and paying as little as they can -- what they subjectively see as their fair share.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:44 am

Jon Estes wrote:Charts... definitions... mean nothing if it is subjective.

That brings us back to the original question.

Obviously, it can not be answered in a manner which is constructive to a tax discussion. All we end up with charts that one person likes... opinions another person rests on and a talking point for liberals who want more of my money.

For those rich liberals who like paying their fair share, tell them to quit taking tax breaks and deductions and pay their fair share. or... Is taking all the deductions they can and paying as little as they can -- what they subjectively see as their fair share.

Charts inform judgement of subjective terms. They make the issues more objective.

Those "rich liberals" that are paying according to current law are what makes our country function. I’l be the first agree with you that rich people/corporations often take tax breaks that they have lobbied for. In addition they are hoarding excess money that needs to be recirculated for a healthy economy.

With our climbing national debt (and the yearly interest we pay on that debt with the risk of foreign debt being called due) those rich people and rich corporations need to up their ante (perhaps with a wealth tax, or a financial transaction tax, and/or a larger income tax rate). To whom much is given, much is expected.

BTW here is who we owe money to.

Image
Most of it (68.1%) will come back to us in many forms (SSN, other retirement funds, bonds when we cash out) but some (31.9%) is held by foreign countries (China's 6.9% and Japan's 5.8% being the largest) who just might call the debt due. BTW the US does not own any foreign government’s debt. We are not as prosperous or generous as we often think.

CEOs/execs (the rich) need to see to it that the lower paid are paid better (min wage increases would demand that) and they are paid less (say>$1M/year or more generally no more than 100:1 ratio in highest to lowest paid in their firms). They have been increasingly their take for decades as public norms allow and are shaped through the RW pundits they fund.

For discussion, here is the distribution of income (pay + investment income) in the US:
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Play with it by putting in your salary+investment income and click "Calculate”. I say the tails at both ends need to be clipped and poverty eliminated as a goal.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Jim » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:27 am

KeithE wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:Charts... definitions... mean nothing if it is subjective.

That brings us back to the original question.

Obviously, it can not be answered in a manner which is constructive to a tax discussion. All we end up with charts that one person likes... opinions another person rests on and a talking point for liberals who want more of my money.

For those rich liberals who like paying their fair share, tell them to quit taking tax breaks and deductions and pay their fair share. or... Is taking all the deductions they can and paying as little as they can -- what they subjectively see as their fair share.

Charts inform judgement of subjective terms. They make the issues more objective.

Those "rich liberals" that are paying according to current law are what makes our country function. I’l be the first agree with you that rich people/corporations often take tax breaks that they have lobbied for. In addition they are hoarding excess money that needs to be recirculated for a healthy economy.

With our climbing national debt (and the yearly interest we pay on that debt with the risk of foreign debt being called due) those rich people and rich corporations need to up their ante (perhaps with a wealth tax, or a financial transaction tax, and/or a larger income tax rate). To whom much is given, much is expected.

BTW here is who we owe money to.

Image
Most of it (68.1%) will come back to us in many forms (SSN, other retirement funds, bonds when we cash out) but some (31.9%) is held by foreign countries (China's 6.9% and Japan's 5.8% being the largest) who just might call the debt due. BTW the US does not own any foreign government’s debt. We are not as prosperous or generous as we often think.

CEOs/execs (the rich) need to see to it that the lower paid are paid better (min wage increases would demand that) and they are paid less (say>$1M/year or more generally no more than 100:1 ratio in highest to lowest paid in their firms). They have been increasingly their take for decades as public norms allow and are shaped through the RW pundits they fund.

For discussion, here is the distribution of income (pay + investment income) in the US:
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Play with it by putting in your salary+investment income and click "Calculate”. I say the tails at both ends need to be clipped and poverty eliminated as a goal.


Do you actually believe that China, Japan, Brazil or any other country will “call” in USA debt? Do you actually believe that any serious attempt will be made by any administration or Congress to balance the budget or pay off debt? More debt was piled up during Obama's eight years than in the whole previous history of the U.S. This nation is so far down the road to socialism already that turning it around is and will be virtually impossible. Crunch the numbers all you want and publish charts and graphs, but they mean nothing in the near term and only time and global conditions will tell about the future.
Jim
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:48 pm

Jim wrote:
1. Do you actually believe that China, Japan, Brazil or any other country will “call” in USA debt? 2. Do you actually believe that any serious attempt will be made by any administration or Congress to balance the budget or pay off debt? 3. More debt was piled up during Obama's eight years than in the whole previous history of the U.S. 4. This nation is so far down the road to socialism already that turning it around is and will be virtually impossible. Crunch the numbers all you want and publish charts and graphs, but they mean nothing in the near term and 5. only time and global conditions will tell about the future.

Red numbers added by me.

1. I don’t think any country will call on our debt, but they could and this President just may anger a China to that end. I don’t know what would happen if they did.

2. If libertarian forces (e.g. Bannon) get in power, it could. They have said their prime aim is reducing most government functions. So you might think they would balance the budget by spending decreases. But they are actually more interested in ending/lowering taxes (i.e. revenue); thus I doubt they will even put a dent in the national debt especially if they keep DoD spending near to what it is.

3. Not technically true. Source: National Debt by Year

The national debt when Obama took office was about $11,000B on Jan 20, 2009 ($11,910B on Mar 16, 2009)

The national debt was about $19, 800B on Jan 20, 2017 (between $19, 573B (on Jan 29, 2016) and $20,165B (on Sept 19, 2017)).

Thus the debt was increased by $8,800B during Obama eight years and the largest annual increase was a Bush budget in 2009. Substantial but not "More debt was piled up during Obama's eight years than in the whole previous history of the U.S.”. And we should remember that Obama inherited a $1,500B/year deficit and reduced that to $439B/year in 2015, usually working against Republican obscuration of doing any more stimulus/jobs programs which would have helped the situation greatly as the 2009-2011 stimulus did in reducing the annual deficit by 2/3rds.

Now Obama did increase the debt more than any other recent President. But in terms of Debt/GDP growth, Reagan takes the cake with Bush Jr. in second place

Image
Truth in graphology: The 16% Obama bar is only until 2011 - it came to 49% by the end of his eight years (much less than Reagan or Bush and even less than Bush Sr.’s 4 year term).

4. We are far behind the Scandinavian countries in term of socialism and their people are happy for it. But I agree turning our country into a non-socialistic country is virtually impossible (and that is a good thing, imo).

5. I disagree, policy matters.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby William Thornton » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:39 pm

More truth in graphology: debt is in dollars not percentages and we pay interest on the dollar amount not the abstract percentages.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11814
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:07 pm

William Thornton wrote:More truth in graphology: debt is in dollars not percentages and we pay interest on the dollar amount not the abstract percentages.

Abstract percentages? Not abstract in the slightest. Debts should be normalized by the GDP when comparing between presidencies from differing decades.

But since you asked and did not provide the “dollar amount” data yourself, here is both the “dollar amount” and the debt/GDO ratio on the same plot (if you can handle it).

Image

Same story. Recent Dems (Clinton and Obama) look good compared to Bush Jr.. Obama improved what he was given, while Bush Jr. took surpluses into the biggest annual deficit ever.

Here’s another surprise for Republicans. Recent Dems (and Bush Sr.) have held the line on federal spending - not true for Reagan or Bush Jr. That is in straight dollars per capital adjusted for inflation (which I'll guess you will object to as well).

Image

As for paying interest on dollars not dollars/GDP. That's true. But Obama has had to live with higher interest payments than any other Pres.

Times have changed since the Eisenhower to Carter days when Republicans did hold the federal spending line more than Dems.

Truth comes with up-to-date facts and data, not old impressions.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Jim » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:43 am

KeithE wrote:Truth comes with up-to-date facts and data, not old impressions.

The charts and graphs are like the Bible – anything can be proven by them, depending upon the motive. Reagan spent lots of cash in order to rebuild the military, which Carter, if not stopped, would have practically gutted. Trump faces the same problem. Obama had left the military out to dry but managed to refill it with homosexuals, transgenders, and “giving” combat status to women, who couldn't earn it. Remember the ladies who couldn't hack Ranger training, much less Navy-Seal torture. The lady who somehow was commissioned as an infantry officer didn't want her name used in the reporting, but the only way to crash the khaki ceiling involves actual fighting, an anathema to women, who, through no fault of their own, are not up to that. While Reagan increased the spending he also hugely lowered the tax rates and the nation did not implode, just as it will not now. You consider yourself wealthy, as per your own assessment, so you join the oligarchs, like the Hollywood millionaires, in knowing that you have yours so the others (socialism dominant) can eat cake.
Jim
 
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:23 pm

KeithE wrote:Truth comes with up-to-date facts and data, not old impressions.


There's a little bit in Jim's rant that's worth discussing, or as is usually the case, requires setting the record straight. The rest of his lip flap about women, transgenders, gays, etc., is good for the bottom of the birdcage.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024 ... e-military

The Obama administration didn't spend as much on the military as the previous administration did, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. The previous administration was involved in two wars for an extended period of time. Otherwise, the money spent on technical weapons development and advancement, and making the military more efficient, and thus more effective, was greater than previous peacetime administrations. A factual evaluation says our military is better equipped and more efficient, and effective, now than it was pre-Obama administration.

The obstructionist Republican congress put the military spending in a bind with their sequester. Well, if you want to restrict the government budget and spending, everyone has to participate. Clearly, there's no evidence that the military is in some kind of shape that requires rebuilding. You'd think that if the military was in the shape that Trump lied about all through the campaign, he'd need a bigger budget than Obama gave it to put it back where it was. But it's not happening.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ne ... 018-2017-5

"Facts and data" and "Jim" are incompatible terms.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8194
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Gets said a lot but what does it mean?

Postby KeithE » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:12 pm

Sandy wrote:
KeithE wrote:Truth comes with up-to-date facts and data, not old impressions.


There's a little bit in Jim's rant that's worth discussing, or as is usually the case, requires setting the record straight. The rest of his lip flap about women, transgenders, gays, etc., is good for the bottom of the birdcage.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476048024 ... e-military

The Obama administration didn't spend as much on the military as the previous administration did, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. The previous administration was involved in two wars for an extended period of time. Otherwise, the money spent on technical weapons development and advancement, and making the military more efficient, and thus more effective, was greater than previous peacetime administrations. A factual evaluation says our military is better equipped and more efficient, and effective, now than it was pre-Obama administration.

The obstructionist Republican congress put the military spending in a bind with their sequester. Well, if you want to restrict the government budget and spending, everyone has to participate. Clearly, there's no evidence that the military is in some kind of shape that requires rebuilding. You'd think that if the military was in the shape that Trump lied about all through the campaign, he'd need a bigger budget than Obama gave it to put it back where it was. But it's not happening.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ne ... 018-2017-5

"Facts and data" and "Jim" are incompatible terms.


Just to add to what Sandy has said (in my language):

Image

Note that the peak defense spending year ever is under Obama. Also Obama has authorized more defense spending than Reagan ever did. And this data is adjusted for inflation.

Jim has fallen prey to the false RW narrative that Obama has “depleted our military”.

Now note that it appears that Obama has reduced defense spending since the peak defense spending year 2010. But the drop is really mostly due to the drawdown in the OCO (Overseas Contingency Operation and mentioned in the plot above) budget which fell from $125B a year in 2011 to $45B in 2017.
Image
Minimize your screen to see 2017.

The OCO budget line started with the Afghanistan response after 2001 (and included the Iraq invasion as well after 2003). It was thought to be a short term add-on to the defense budget, but it has gone on for over 15 years (Afghanistan is our longest war ever). Note, that it had tracked closely with the number of troops in Afghanistan from 2005 until 2013. But since 2013 Obama has used it to expand into operations in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalis, and Sudan. That’s what I have against Obama - his quiet interventions (urged on by Hillary). The MSM media has barely mentioned these other still ongoing interventions - that info comes from Jeremy Schaill’s book Dirty Wars and Democracy Now, Al Jazeera and the BBC.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8410
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests