Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The politics of the "fair share"

YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.
Tsar of DDO
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:29:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Taxation does not fund activities that "benefit us all". Instead, taxation allows the state to keep a monopoly on many services (roads, defense, etc.) that could be operated on a free market.

The problem isn't the concept of "fair share" (although that is a very stupid concept). The problem is the concept of "needing the state" (which in entirely false).
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 7:29:58 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Taxation does not fund activities that "benefit us all". Instead, taxation allows the state to keep a monopoly on many services (roads, defense, etc.) that could be operated on a free market.

I'm kind of skeptical regarding national defense. Is it plausible that security firms would group together and coordinate a response towards a foreign enemy, like if China decided to invade? I don't think so.

The problem isn't the concept of "fair share" (although that is a very stupid concept). The problem is the concept of "needing the state" (which in entirely false).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 12:05:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.

I understand and share your distaste for the term 'fair share', but am clouded by your rhetoric when it comes to a justification of a progressive tax. You don't really explain why it's okay to not just tax the rich more, but to tax them on a graduated scale of more, and how you think that's justified. The real truth to that is, that they have it. That is the primary reason that a graduated index is okay, because that is where the money is, and the government wants it.

You can somehow make some nebulous reference to social justice, but that's just a bunch of crap. Government takes money where money exists, and where it doesn't and it has little regard for whether it comes from the rich or poor. In fact I can think of a few taxes that are regressive and particularly hard on the poor, like the gas tax. Taxes on ciggarettes and the lottery are also taxes on the poor, and the government gleefully increases those taxes at every opportunity.

Government takes, anything it can, where ever there is something that it can take.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 2:55:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 12:05:43 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.

I understand and share your distaste for the term 'fair share', but am clouded by your rhetoric when it comes to a justification of a progressive tax. You don't really explain why it's okay to not just tax the rich more, but to tax them on a graduated scale of more, and how you think that's justified. The real truth to that is, that they have it. That is the primary reason that a graduated index is okay, because that is where the money is, and the government wants it.

You can somehow make some nebulous reference to social justice, but that's just a bunch of crap. Government takes money where money exists, and where it doesn't and it has little regard for whether it comes from the rich or poor. In fact I can think of a few taxes that are regressive and particularly hard on the poor, like the gas tax. Taxes on ciggarettes and the lottery are also taxes on the poor, and the government gleefully increases those taxes at every opportunity.

Government takes, anything it can, where ever there is something that it can take.

It's because lower-income households spend more on common goods and services, and shifting more of the tax burden onto the upper classes reduces the amount of income needed for a minimum standard of living. It lets more people establish a minimum standard of living for themselves with what they have.

I definitely agree with you that certain taxes are regressive and hurt the poor - and I am all for abolishing those taxes in favor of one tax (whether it is a flat tax with a standard deduction of 1.5 times the poverty line, or a progressive tax). However, taxes on the lottery and on cigarettes are not examples of those taxes. If they can't afford food or housing, then they shouldn't be smoking and gambling their money away.

Should I also mention that the total combined income of the lower 48% of households is equal to that of the top 1.3%, and that by shifting the tax burden upward, most people are having their taxes lowered?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 2:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 12:05:43 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.

I understand and share your distaste for the term 'fair share', but am clouded by your rhetoric when it comes to a justification of a progressive tax. You don't really explain why it's okay to not just tax the rich more, but to tax them on a graduated scale of more, and how you think that's justified. The real truth to that is, that they have it. That is the primary reason that a graduated index is okay, because that is where the money is, and the government wants it.

You can somehow make some nebulous reference to social justice, but that's just a bunch of crap. Government takes money where money exists, and where it doesn't and it has little regard for whether it comes from the rich or poor. In fact I can think of a few taxes that are regressive and particularly hard on the poor, like the gas tax. Taxes on ciggarettes and the lottery are also taxes on the poor, and the government gleefully increases those taxes at every opportunity.

Government takes, anything it can, where ever there is something that it can take.

The point wasn't to justify a progressive tax, but to lament and lambast the means by which it is justified by the modern Democratic party. The rhetoric of the "fair share" is not only ideologically treasonous to the philosophical premises of American liberalism, but it is exceptionally imprudent in that it introduces an element of class warfare into the American political sphere which didn't previously exist.

So, essentially I'm speaking as a Liberal on ostensibly "Liberal" lines of reasoning -which is to say that I'm assuming that a progressive tax system is good and proper without taking the time to ground the reasoning and justification for a progressive tax system. Even still, while that wasn't my point -if I were to do it- I'd just yield to John Rawls.

I'm also not in disagreement with your claim that the government taxes where money is there, and that government taxes different people in different ways for different reasons. Cigarettes, for example, are federally taxed and shielded from competition (and protected by tariffs on imported tobacco, which is why I can't ever find European Davidoffs and so I smoke Marlboro's), taxed at the state level, and in some cases taxed at the local level. But that's just one example. Income is much more complicated, but as a rule the tax system -while hardly without flaws- is generally less hard on the poor than it is on the rich and the reason why that is alright is because one is taxed to the extent that one benefits from the economic system, without hampering the incentive to pursue of wealth in that system -to a common benefit.

That said, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons for a progressive tax system -but my issue is how a progressive tax system is justified, not that it is justified, because I assume the latter claim.
Tsar of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 3:13:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 2:56:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/17/2013 12:05:43 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.

I understand and share your distaste for the term 'fair share', but am clouded by your rhetoric when it comes to a justification of a progressive tax. You don't really explain why it's okay to not just tax the rich more, but to tax them on a graduated scale of more, and how you think that's justified. The real truth to that is, that they have it. That is the primary reason that a graduated index is okay, because that is where the money is, and the government wants it.

You can somehow make some nebulous reference to social justice, but that's just a bunch of crap. Government takes money where money exists, and where it doesn't and it has little regard for whether it comes from the rich or poor. In fact I can think of a few taxes that are regressive and particularly hard on the poor, like the gas tax. Taxes on ciggarettes and the lottery are also taxes on the poor, and the government gleefully increases those taxes at every opportunity.

Government takes, anything it can, where ever there is something that it can take.

The point wasn't to justify a progressive tax, but to lament and lambast the means by which it is justified by the modern Democratic party. The rhetoric of the "fair share" is not only ideologically treasonous to the philosophical premises of American liberalism, but it is exceptionally imprudent in that it introduces an element of class warfare into the American political sphere which didn't previously exist.

So, essentially I'm speaking as a Liberal on ostensibly "Liberal" lines of reasoning -which is to say that I'm assuming that a progressive tax system is good and proper without taking the time to ground the reasoning and justification for a progressive tax system. Even still, while that wasn't my point -if I were to do it- I'd just yield to John Rawls.

I'm also not in disagreement with your claim that the government taxes where money is there, and that government taxes different people in different ways for different reasons. Cigarettes, for example, are federally taxed and shielded from competition (and protected by tariffs on imported tobacco, which is why I can't ever find European Davidoffs and so I smoke Marlboro's), taxed at the state level, and in some cases taxed at the local level. But that's just one example. Income is much more complicated, but as a rule the tax system -while hardly without flaws- is generally less hard on the poor than it is on the rich and the reason why that is alright is because one is taxed to the extent that one benefits from the economic system, without hampering the incentive to pursue of wealth in that system -to a common benefit.

That said, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons for a progressive tax system -but my issue is how a progressive tax system is justified, not that it is justified, because I assume the latter claim.

The rule is very simple, even with income, they tax where the money is, and there is less to take at a graduated level with income because there is a diminishing need of money at a graduated level, so that's where the money is.

Personally, I find the most disgusting tax and revenue raiser to be with the lottery, where it is a sin tax, but they create the sin, market the sin, heavily promote the sin, then collect the tax, largely on poor working class people.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 3:20:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 3:13:12 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2013 2:56:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/17/2013 12:05:43 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.

I understand and share your distaste for the term 'fair share', but am clouded by your rhetoric when it comes to a justification of a progressive tax. You don't really explain why it's okay to not just tax the rich more, but to tax them on a graduated scale of more, and how you think that's justified. The real truth to that is, that they have it. That is the primary reason that a graduated index is okay, because that is where the money is, and the government wants it.

You can somehow make some nebulous reference to social justice, but that's just a bunch of crap. Government takes money where money exists, and where it doesn't and it has little regard for whether it comes from the rich or poor. In fact I can think of a few taxes that are regressive and particularly hard on the poor, like the gas tax. Taxes on ciggarettes and the lottery are also taxes on the poor, and the government gleefully increases those taxes at every opportunity.

Government takes, anything it can, where ever there is something that it can take.

The point wasn't to justify a progressive tax, but to lament and lambast the means by which it is justified by the modern Democratic party. The rhetoric of the "fair share" is not only ideologically treasonous to the philosophical premises of American liberalism, but it is exceptionally imprudent in that it introduces an element of class warfare into the American political sphere which didn't previously exist.

So, essentially I'm speaking as a Liberal on ostensibly "Liberal" lines of reasoning -which is to say that I'm assuming that a progressive tax system is good and proper without taking the time to ground the reasoning and justification for a progressive tax system. Even still, while that wasn't my point -if I were to do it- I'd just yield to John Rawls.

I'm also not in disagreement with your claim that the government taxes where money is there, and that government taxes different people in different ways for different reasons. Cigarettes, for example, are federally taxed and shielded from competition (and protected by tariffs on imported tobacco, which is why I can't ever find European Davidoffs and so I smoke Marlboro's), taxed at the state level, and in some cases taxed at the local level. But that's just one example. Income is much more complicated, but as a rule the tax system -while hardly without flaws- is generally less hard on the poor than it is on the rich and the reason why that is alright is because one is taxed to the extent that one benefits from the economic system, without hampering the incentive to pursue of wealth in that system -to a common benefit.

That said, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons for a progressive tax system -but my issue is how a progressive tax system is justified, not that it is justified, because I assume the latter claim.

The rule is very simple, even with income, they tax where the money is, and there is less to take at a graduated level with income because there is a diminishing need of money at a graduated level, so that's where the money is.

Again, that's not something I'm in disagreement with either -but my point is that what you're saying doesn't account for the whole picture.

Personally, I find the most disgusting tax and revenue raiser to be with the lottery, where it is a sin tax, but they create the sin, market the sin, heavily promote the sin, then collect the tax, largely on poor working class people.

I agree that lotteries are problematic, but I'd suggest that taxes on alcohol (and blue laws that generally carry a financial penalty) are the most offensive, especially where one can pay the state imposing the blue law a sum of money to be exempt from such inconveniences as not being allowed to sell liquor on Sunday.
Tsar of DDO
slo1
Posts: 4,332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 4:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Democrats are slow witted anyway. They use "fair share" to evoke emotion. While I do believe the american system gives more to the rich, simply on the basis that they have a greater likeliness to uses systems that are available to everyone. IE: right to property, use of civil courts to resolve disputes, a robust criminal justice system to protect property and wealth, insurance on bank deposits, etc., I too dislike "fair share".

However with that said, isn't that the heart of the argument? What is the fair share? Conservatives argue it is over here and Democrats argue it is over there. It is still all an argument of what is fair?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 9:08:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 4:30:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/17/2013 4:26:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
Democrats are slow witted anyway.

That's a brave proposal.

It depends whether it's being proposed as an absolute rule or a general one. The former is obviously difficult to defend, but I would agree with the latter, and hold that the same applies to Republicans. Most of the people who hold allegiance to a political party are not all that bright, the widespread adoption of 'fair share' rhetoric is exhibit A.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:05:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 5:50:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Every time I hear a Democrat use this term it causes my blood pressure to raise, because the concept of a truly "fair share" amounts to nothing more than the cost of government services actually consumed. The notion of a progressive tax system isn't based on the politics of everyone paying anything like a "fair share" but of reinvesting into the infrastructure which makes possible the economic system from which one benefited, an amount proportionally relative to the extent to which one benefits from the economic system facilitated by that infrastructure.

Higher taxes across higher income brackets isn't about the government playing "Robin Hood" but about ensuring that those same economic opportunities which made possible economic growth initially, continue to do so.

Moreover, the rhetoric of "fair share" reduces taxes to a form of forced charity by which an unearned merit is conferred on the undeserving at the expense of the deserving -which is antithetical to the liberal narrative of government's place in society.

By making one's "fair share" the issue of the hour, Democrats make high earners victims and the economically less well off leeches at the societal teat. That sort of stratification is not only ought to be offensive to ALL americans, but stands in the face of the Liberal tradition of individualism in the United States (whereby the government and the benefits it distributes are the materialized blessing of living in this one nation under God, with the expectation that individuals will make better for themselves rather than live at the expense of the rest of us).

"Fair Share" politics border dangerously close to the same sort of class warfare that characterizes Modern France and the UK. America does not have classes. We have people, equal before God and the law. Stratifying society in this way is not only antiliberal, it's un-American.

Agree. I support progressive taxation, I hate the term "fair share". Slo1 is correct in that the tax debate is essentially over where the line on "fair share" is drawn. Democrats assume their mark is right to argue their position. It is blatant question begging.