Tim McGraw & Garth Brooks are "Obama Supporters"...

[Rapscallion]

When you control a large percentage of the wealth in America, you should pay a large percentage of taxes.

I'm interested in the reason for you saying that.

I happen to agree, but mostly on the grounds that if your country needs tax income, the people with the largest incomes are the ones who can pay more. What's your basis?

Rapscallion

[mjr]

When you control a large percentage of the wealth in America, you should pay a large percentage of taxes.

Is this a "just because you can" thing?

So let me lay this out there: Let's say you have a CEO of MegaCorp. That CEO's salary is $40 million/year.

In your mind, how much should that CEO pay, percentage-wise, in taxes?

I'd say that's a pretty straightforward question.

[Gravekeeper]

Didn't Andara already answer this? >.>

Why are you jumping down miko's throat?

[s_stabeler]

Is this a "just because you can" thing?

So let me lay this out there: Let's say you have a CEO of MegaCorp. That CEO's salary is $40 million/year.

In your mind, how much should that CEO pay, percentage-wise, in taxes?

I'd say that's a pretty straightforward question.

except it isn't actually straightforward at all. the issue is the relative burden of taxes, not the exact percentages.

the point we are trying to make is that a higher % tax rate is actually less of a burden on someone rich, therefore, a "fair" share of tax would naturally be higher. It's somewhat hyperbole, but to someone rich, a 1% increase in tax might mean they can only buy a new car every other year, not every year. To someone at the poverty line, a 1% increase in the tax rate might mean they need to go hungry for a day or two.

so the answer is: a sufficient percentage that the government can pay it's bills, while not causing people to be forced to choose between (for example) keeping a roof over their heads and buying food. Should that rate be 1%, then 1% is a faire rate for them to pay. should it be 80%, then that is fair- although, if it IS that high, there should probably be questions asked about why.

[Andara Bledin]

so the answer is: a sufficient percentage that the government can pay it's bills, while not causing people to be forced to choose between (for example) keeping a roof over their heads and buying food. Should that rate be 1%, then 1% is a faire rate for them to pay. should it be 80%, then that is fair- although, if it IS that high, there should probably be questions asked about why.

This is pretty much it.

It might feel "unfair" that the fabulously wealthy are paying a much higher percentage in taxes than the middle class. But as it is now, they're not even paying as much as the middle class and there are people starving in the streets and dying of exposure. That there are people crying about how the government won't let them hoard as much money as they want while people are dying at their feet is disgusting and anyone who suggests the wealthy not be taxed as much as needed should be ashamed of themselves.

This abundance of 'temporarily embarassed' millionaires is apalling and any of you who think you'll one day be one of the wealthy and support the means by which they dodge paying anything close to a fair share of their taxes: you'll never be wealthy because they don't want you to be and you're helping them keep you and everybody else out of their ranks. Good job, people.

[Hyena Dandy]

Is this a "just because you can" thing?

So let me lay this out there: Let's say you have a CEO of MegaCorp. That CEO's salary is $40 million/year.

In your mind, how much should that CEO pay, percentage-wise, in taxes?

I'd say that's a pretty straightforward question.

It's a pretty stupid question too, and I (and others) already answered.

WHATEVER AMOUNT IS NECESSARY. If at's 10%, then he should pay 10%. If it's 90% then he should pay 90%. There are people starving, there are people homeless, there are schools failing, infrastructure crumbling, and we need to fix that. We need to know how much money we NEED, then assign based on THAT.

Believe me, I don't like the idea of paying my money in taxes. I also don't like the idea of billionaires paying money. I don't gain some visceral joy from the thought that the CEO of Walmart will be slightly less rich than he would otherwise be. If it was possible to keep people off the streets, keep them fed, and well both physically AND psychologically, to keep people safe, and to keep them educated, and do all that with each US citizen not having to give up a dime, then I'd be happy to say taxes just plain shouldn't exist.

That doesn't work. So we need a budget, we need to figure out how much we need to pay to meet that budget. I'm not married to any philosophy of government, economics, or anything else. We need to have people safe, and healthy. In body and mind. If we have that, then I don't give a fuck how much you have to pay.

[TheHuckster]

As far as I'm concerned, discussing if the tax rate should be 80%+ is a strawman, since the fact of the matter is it really doesn't take that much to improve the issues facing us (and if such a drastic change to our tax policy was required, then we're in much deeper trouble than you'd think). I would say a moderately sloped progressive tax with far fewer deductions than we have now would go a very long way. Such a policy would stymie the hoarding problem while also still encourage entrepreneurial and small business endeavors which often does require a lot of investment capital to start.

[Tama]

All this discussion of the poor makes me wish for the system that Star Trek DS9 shows. You will not want for anything and those interested in pursuing interests will be able to without becoming starving artists and things like that. You can have your own restaurant if you have the talent.

[Gravekeeper]

All this discussion of the poor makes me wish for the system that Star Trek DS9 shows. You will not want for anything and those interested in pursuing interests will be able to without becoming starving artists and things like that. You can have your own restaurant if you have the talent.

Star Trek is a post resource civilization. When you can convert energy to matter a lot of things become moot points. >.>

[Tama]

Yeah, good point.

[Estil]

I'm curious as to why you think the Dixie Chicks did something monumentally stupid when they ended up being right on the money. Especially given that the incident with the Dixie Chicks encapsulates what you're saying perfectly. Both in the completely insane reaction by country music fans at the time and in other artists using it as an opportunity to cash in on patriotic pandering.

The interesting thing about that situation is that the Chicks had the nerve to on foreign soil say publicly that they're embarrassed that our President is from Texas or something to that effect. And then of course when Texans, Bush supporters and whatnot decided not to buy their music/play their music in response, the Chick supporters were all like, "Hey! What do you think you're doing!?!? Don't you know they have the right to free speech!?!?" Well terrific, those who didn't like what the Chicks had to say have free speech too, and chose to also use their freedom of wallet as well.

And that my friends is what people sometimes forget about free speech; it goes for the other guys too.

[Hyena Dandy]

The interesting thing about that situation is that the Chicks had the nerve to on foreign soil say publicly that they're embarrassed that our President is from Texas or something to that effect.

How dare someone have a political view. And outside the country even. The nerve indeed!

And remember, that wasn't supposed to be an insult to Texas. It was saying that they're embarrassed by their association 'cause they think Texas is great. >_>

[Gravekeeper]

The interesting thing about that situation is that the Chicks had the nerve to on foreign soil say publicly that they're embarrassed that our President is from Texas or something to that effect. And then of course when Texans, Bush supporters and whatnot decided not to buy their music/play their music in response, the Chick supporters were all like, "Hey! What do you think you're doing!?!? Don't you know they have the right to free speech!?!?" Well terrific, those who didn't like what the Chicks had to say have free speech too, and chose to also use their freedom of wallet as well.

No, Chick supporters were not all like whatever the heck you're talking about. Nor was the backlash against them just free speech / free market at work. It was a hate filled, hypocritical campaign of screeching misogynistic bullshit where the same dipshits running around saying they're ashamed of America since Obama took office are the same people that were lining up to lynch the Dixie Chicks during Bush's presidency. They were literally called traitors, sent death threats, slammed as sluts, etc, not by some grassroots movement by right there in the media by talking heads and politicians. They needed 24 hour security at their homes. I mean fark, fucking Toby Keith used a picture of one of them lovingly snuggled up to Saddam Hussein as his tour poster.

See, if you're embarrassed by Bush on foreign soil its treason. If you threaten to shoot Obama on stage or shit on him while on tour in India, you're a Conservative Hero(tm).

[Estil]

Screeching misogynistic bullshit eh? Yeah I remember something about that:

https://youtu.be/2WQbNaXJ8Pw

I do indeed remember how the so-called tolerant progressive open minded left were regarding branding Bush as a Nazi/Hitler/war criminal/etc (I guess debating/disagreeing with the administration (as the lovely Hilary Clinton so put it at the time) wasn't good enough for them)...and the media for the most part pretty much looked the other way or even went so far as treating them like champions for free speech. But when Obama got even a tenth of any of that, all of a sudden it's disrespecting the Presidency? As Hillary herself put it, you bet I will debate and disagree with this administration when I believe necessarily.

While I certainly don't believe Obama is any kind of bad guy or has any real malicious intent (good luck getting most of the left back during the Bush years to concede that point) he was horribly unqualified and inexperienced for the job (fraction of a term in the Senate, fraction of a term in state legislature, voting "Present" most of the time...ooookay what's the point of being in public office if you don't even have the guts to take a stand one way or another?) and naturally I don't see eye to eye on him on most of the issues at all. Now I can't speak for anyone else but I don't care how much I don't like the President politically or how strongly I disagree with himi on most of the issues...you won't see me doing things like say, going to the Presidential inauguration of 2017 and singing "Na na na na hey hey hey good-bye" to Obama (save those sort of things for campaign rallies and such, not a serious formal occasion like an inauguration). And the way the far left activists celebrated Margaret Thatcher's death was also appalling. Luckily Reagan's passing was for the most part respectful across the political spectrum and when it comes Carter's time to go I hope he too gets the proper respect regardless of political view.

Threaten to shoot Obama on stage? There was a book written about how a potential Bush assassination might go down and he even had a shoe thrown at him...once again the left for the most part had no problem with any of it.

[Gravekeeper]

Ugh, you're really going to trot out that dead horse of an argument? Really? Especially with a clip comparing a Catholic school girl rally vs a Tea Party rally? On CNN? CNN only wishes it spoke for "The Left", it might actually have decent ratings then.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of that bullshit. Anyone tossing out "so called tolerant progressive open minded left" probably isn't open to a rational discussion of politics. -.-