I believe my question is directed toward jem's inferred internal validity to his statement. I'm not making any claims, I'm trying to stoke a discussion - not bickering and name-calling.
An Inconvenient Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
I believe my question is directed toward jem's inferred internal validity to his statement. I'm not making any claims, I'm trying to stoke a discussion - not bickering and name-calling.
I think punystrike needs to address my question first , and acknowledge the assumptions of his question.
Of course he's checkmated either way, so I doubt he'll answer.
Of course he's checkmated either way, so I doubt he'll answer.
It's a simple question : answer it.
(don't try to pawn it off on jem)
Do you believe there is internal validity to your question : yes or no?
No, there is no internal validity to my question, it neither implies nor claims any. It is a question seeking an answer, which jem provided. Try to stay on topic PT.
Everyone should pay their fair share.
I have yet see someone put a number on what is a fair share.
What percent of total federal taxes should the top 1% pay?
What percent of total federal taxes should the top 10% pay?
What percent of total federal taxes should the top 50% pay?
What percent of total federal taxes should the bottom 50% pay?
oops there went your line of attack.
So you asked a stupid question and I caught you and now you're mad at me ?
I think "fair" for those clamoring about "fair share" would be somewhere around 94% of their income or wealth whichever is greater.
I'm actually inclined to agree with Keynes, but at them moment we're trying to dig out of a recession with the Bush tax cuts still in place, and additional payroll tax cuts also in place. Additionally, we have a massive deficit and national debt which also drags on the economy in a more abstract way. So, in order for any reform to be effective, we would have to cut spending substantially more than we would cut revenue. In my mind, this would lead to cuts mostly in social programs, which would lead to lower/no spending from recipients. Additionally, this could lead to significant social unrest.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
oops there went your line of attack.
So you asked a stupid question and I caught you and now you're mad at me ?
What line of questioning? It's an open discussion. There's no slant here. I wanted jem to explain his statement, plain and simple.
What would make the most sense to me would be a ratio in personal income vs. the gross national income. I.e. you're in the top 1%, at the national level you make up 50% of the gross income, you should be taxed at 50%. You can extrapolate from there. There should also be a +/- factor for average cost of living for the lower classes. Then again, I think that's kind of the point of having a marginal tax system. Now if just worked the way it's supposed to...