Miscellaneous News. - Page 27

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Now here's a good idea:

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Ahhh..."fair share"... Whatever. I bet you can't even define the "fair" share in an objective and measurable way.

I could argue that "fair" is everyone paying the exact same rate and no one getting any deductions (lest we do things like bias the tax code in favor of homeowners, or Prius-buyers, or parents or whatever.)

Here are some relevant definitions:

- Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial

One can easily argue that having different rates of taxation or even having deductions of any kind establishes a favoritism or bias in one direction or another.


- equal shares or treatment

This one may suggest the same percentage of of income regardless of how much that income is. Another option here would be that the budget (e.g., $3.5T be equally divided among every person in the country (e.g., 320M) and each person pays their "fair share" (approx. $11K each)...or by household (e.g., 110M)...(approx. $32K each). Every year!

But I suspect you'd disagree about that being "fair."

Some will argue that the rich benefit disproportionately more from government "services" than others do. I don't know how this could be measured except by their incomes. But it turns out that while the top 1% (a common villain in all this) garner about 20% of the national income, they pay 40% of the income taxes. Conversely the bottom 50% garner about 17-18% of the national income pie but pay only about 1% of the income tax pie. One could easily argue they those people are not paying their "fair share."

Here's a blog post addressing this issue.

Other arguments could be made for it being unfair to be forced to pay for programs you either disagree with or outright oppose. Another would be arguing it's unfair to have money forcibly taken from you to simply be given to someone else without even a hint of some "service" being provided (outright redistribution.) Finally, one could argue there's no fairness involved at all if there's force involved.

In reality this whole "fair share" thing is lazy bullshit political rhetoric. It is also code language for the class conflict that politicians (and their useful idiots) want to create.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Just so we're clear that there aren't any contradictions here. The figures I posted were about income taxes only, yours appears to be about total taxes.

That issue cleared up...thanks for posting another data point that shows the top 1% paying at least their "fair share".

P.S. A link would be nice.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I'm not doing your work for you.



From this link:



Imagine if that tax code could be simplified and that $431 billion was freed up to do more productive and useful things in the economy.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Since "simple" is not an absolute concept and "fair" is a somewhat vague, ambiguous and subjective concept...I'm not sure how anyone could answer this question.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Sorry to disappoint you.

Contrary to what you may assume about me...I don't assume that the structure of the tax code is the only factor in the goodness or badness of the society within that area.

I'd argue that any society where property rights are devalued and theft is prominent and even openly praised...well this will be a society headed toward decline. This might not be immediately evident. Things might even look pretty good on the surface (after all looters can look like their living large in the short term)...but I would say this is one part of a recipe for societal decline in the long run.