Hillary and the "fairshare" canard

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Bluesguy, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep she is back at in her recent economic speech

    "I have a different take, guided by some simple principles.

    First, hard-working families need and deserve tax relief and simplification.

    Second, those at the top have to pay their fair share. That’s why I support the Buffett Rule, which makes sure that millionaires don’t pay lower rates than their secretaries.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/13/full-fisking-hillary-clintons-economy-speech/

    Which once again begs the question no liberal/leftist/progressive Hillary supporter will answer.

    The top 1% pays 40% of federal income taxes, and by bringing in the Buffet rule she is talking income taxes, the top 10% pay about 70% and the top 20% pay over 80%. The bottom 50% pay virtually nothing and in fact the bottom 25% make money off the tax system.

    So if that is not fair, then what would be fair? If the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing the what more tax relief can they get especially those at the bottom who MAKE MONEY off the tax system.

    Can I guess we will not get a straight answer?
     
  2. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    8,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You'd have to ask Clinton to know what she has in mind, but the gist of her argument seems obvious. When she says "fair," she's talking about upward mobility. You're using raw numbers. Two different things.
     
  3. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,299
    Likes Received:
    7,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do not understand what you are asking. If the bottom 50 percent are not earning enough income to pay in income taxes, the only way they can be helped is not by their tax rates getting lower. The only way they can be helped is by having a job that pays enough to require them to pay taxes. So, by taxing the big dogs more, above a certain income, if you took that and invested here on infrastructure, you would help out millions in the 50 percent to be able to earn more money, which would help them out financially. And that is how raising taxes on the well off helps out others. And you must tax those incomes that are high enough to warrant taxes. Since 60 percent of middle class income has moved to the top over the decades, that is where the money is to be taxed. Before there was such a great disparity in income, the middle class bore the brunt of the taxes, but as we started losing the middle, with their income going to the top, the top is now paying most of the taxes, only because they are keeping all of the income, or much more of it that used to go to the middle.

    So when a conservative tries to use the argument that the rich are already paying much of the income taxes, they seem to forget who used to pay the taxes before this class at the top started taking the income from the middle for themselves. LOL
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's pretty cut and dried. Hillary says the top earners are not paying their fair share in taxes and the bottom earners need tax relief.

    I gave you the approx. numbers. If that is not fair, then what would be. If the bottom 50% pay virtually no income taxes and the bottom 25% actually make money off the tax system what tax relief is she talking about how do you relieve people of income taxes when they don't pay any?

    This isn't about jobs or infrastructure, it is about the fair share of taxes Hillary is claiming the highest earners are not paying while the bottom needs tax relief.

    This is about the liberal argument Hillary is using to claim that the highest earners are not paying the fair share of income taxes. If those numbers are not fair then what would be. How much more a share should they be for it to be fair?


    As predicted no straight answer to the question.
     
  5. ballantine

    ballantine Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's the wrong question.

    Taxes are involved in two things: government revenue, and macroscopic control of the wealth structure. (The latter is "policy").

    However that is not really the issue, for Joe Average. Sure, Joe Average is inconvenienced by the headaches of tax forms once a year, and he grumbles a bit, but really Joe has a much bigger problem, doesn't he?

    Joe's real problem is that he can't save money anymore. Not only is there no incentive for him to save (no interest rate, to speak of), but everywhere he turns the only "savings" products being offered are full of inherent risk. The US as a whole has a negative savings rate, and that's because the little guy can't save any money, and wouldn't want to anyway even if he could.

    The only way to change this is to reshape the wealth distribution by breaking up the large concentrations of wealth. And most of those are corporate, not individual. There are a few individuals, sure, but most of the real meaningful concentrations are corporate. Tax policy isn't going to help us (much) with this issue, because corporations kind of "pass through" their taxes to the consumer. What has to happen instead is a stronger form of regulation that involves actual breaking up. I offer Ma Bell as a precedent, the breakup of Ma Bell was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy. No investor lost a dime, and it spawned the entirety of the cell phone industry, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of jobs, new companies and entrepreneurship, etc etc.
     
  6. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Fair means impartial, without favoritism or bias ... a fair share is an equal share. If 316 million people spend $3.8 trillion, each families fair share is about $12,000 per person.





     
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It the only question vis-a-vis her position in taxes, your reply is the wrong reply as predicted, an attempt to divert.

    Now try again and address what she said and what I asked.
     
  8. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not in her statement and hers and the liberal wish for trade policy.
     
  9. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Because she's focusing of a fair outcome, not a fair contribution. A problem with how we often use government is many people think government can and should make life fair. It can't.




     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong again she is talking they are not PAYING their fair share, they should be paying more and the bottom should be paying less.

    So try again without the desperate spinning.

    The top 1% pays 40% of federal income taxes, and by bringing in the Buffet rule she is talking income taxes, the top 10% pay about 70% and the top 20% pay over 80%. The bottom 50% pay virtually nothing and in fact the bottom 25% make money off the tax system.

    So if that is not fair, then what would be fair? If the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing the what more tax relief can they get especially those at the bottom who MAKE MONEY off the tax system.

    Can I guess we will not get a straight answer?
     
  11. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63



    I realize she's talking about paying. And in evaluating those payments, she's focusing on the outcome of paying. She is not focusing on the fairness of the contribution itself. This is where she is making a mistake and that is why she is getting an answer that is not fair.

    I have given you a very straight answer. You asked "what would be fair?" I told you $12,000 per person. It seems, you didn't bother to read it.




     
  12. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,332
    Likes Received:
    9,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Though I cannot be considered leftist/Liberal/Progressive for the most part....I do think the removal of loopholes would be very beneficial to our system and create more fiscal equality. This would obviously increase the taxation of many in the highest level and corporate entities, but is actually fairness according to our laws.
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    I'm sorry you don't get to make up things she did not say. She was quite clear and unequivocal.

    It is her economic policy that she is running on, the highest earners aren't paying their fair share and the lowest earners need tax relief.

    So again, focus like a laser this time.

    And I doubt she will propose that. Do you? But to be clear you believe the highest earners are paying WAY WAY WAY more a "share" than they should be paying? And you support a 100% tax on someone making $12,000 a year?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Do you believe the highest earners are not paying their fair share? What is your goal in doing what your propose?​
     
  14. justthefactsma'am

    justthefactsma'am New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2015
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hillary could still beat any repub candidate, you're beating a dead horse.

    Berniementum is picking up steam even in The Alabama Of The South AZ, and we still have way over a year until the election.

    GO BERNIE!!
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,332
    Likes Received:
    9,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe the highest earners are certainly paying their "Fair Share", but also feel they have the ability to save the country that created them. One way or another we need to do something to fix our nations financial woes....they are the only way to do it and stopping them from manipulating our tax code seems to me a good idea.

    I simply cannot do so and neither can you.
     
  16. FrankCapua

    FrankCapua Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The left has always been innumerate.
     
  17. justthefactsma'am

    justthefactsma'am New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2015
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. If we restore the capital gains tax to prior levels, lift the cap on the payroll tax, and restore the inheritance tax as before, SS would be solvent for 50 more years at least, and the budget starts shrinking immediately, enough to handle the 1-2 trillion we're spending on defense. Then if the US would cease it's efforts to dominate the entire globe, we'd be paying the national debt down very shortly.
     
  18. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63



    You did not ask me what I would support or what people should pay. You asked "what would be fair?" I told you $12,000 per person. It seems, you didn't bother to read it.

    I don't believe it's possible to keep the lights on in this country with a fair tax. We spend too much.





     
  19. ballantine

    ballantine Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. You're looking at an income disparity in the millions. We need more tax brackets.
     
  20. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,374
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Motorola invented the cell phone and it wasn't because Ma Bell broke up.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh I pay taxes believe you me, I'm in the top 25% of earners. How about the bottom 50% paying just a share?

    And what do you mean the country created them, the wealthy? I think they created themselves and did so in spite of the government that's for sure.

    You want to fix the economic woes of the country, well more wealth distribution and higher tax rates on the producers is certainly NOT the way to that fix.

    But glad you do agree Hillary is blowing smoke and you will never hear her answer that question I pose, it is a platitude to the left playing to their envy and jealousy.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you try to reconcile the contradictions in your statement? And maybe try to be a little more concise.

    You agree or disagree with Hillary?
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm looking at taxes necessary to run the country and Hillary saying the highest earners are not paying their fair share of that and the bottom needing more tax relief from it so again

    The top 1% pays 40% of federal income taxes, and by bringing in the Buffet rule she is talking income taxes, the top 10% pay about 70% and the top 20% pay over 80%. The bottom 50% pay virtually nothing and in fact the bottom 25% make money off the tax system.

    So do you agree with HIllary that that is not fair? If not then what would be fair?

    If the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing the what more tax relief can they get especially those at the bottom who MAKE MONEY off the tax system.
     
  24. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63



    I have told you I think Hillary is mistaken. I have told you her answer is not fair.

    I see no contradictions in my statement.




     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    121,368
    Likes Received:
    25,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you agree she is blowing smoke and the highest earners are already paying their "fair share" in fact more than their "fair share" and that you can't give tax relief to those who aren't paying the taxes?
     

Share This Page