Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is a Fair Share of taxes for the Rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Several major issues.
    You asked how tax impacts income inequality, I explained how, then you objected based on fairness. That makes no sense MT. When explaining how something works, you don't need to make a justification of whether it is good, only say how it works. My point stands, taxes affect income inequality through welath redistribution.

    Support
    The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
    The Communist revolution in China
    The the rise of Fascism in the Vymar republic
    The French Revolution

    All cases of internal revolutions due at least in part to extreme income inequality in the nations involved. History has plenty of other exampels but these are some of the bloodiest and they show how populist revolts of the common man give rise to extreme governments bent on high levels of control and violence.

    I mean... dude.. America has produced the most rich people in the history of the history. A free nation doesn't need to care about the wealth of the rich. Especially because that wealth doesn't stay in one persons hand for eternity.
    It is not the limits of wealth but the disparity in power and privilage betseen the wealthy and the poor that matters. America has taken a lot of steps to try and mitigate this in the modern era.

    That threat only exists where people make money by EXPLOITING (not free exchange) the people.. like in communist countries, where the only reason one is rich, is because they are cheating the system.
    So I would say that you are a long way from supporting this point, and that I am a long way from accepting it.
    So rich people don't exploit American politics or the American working class. Do you really think that is true? Wage thift is estimated around 19 billion dollars a year in the US, that is companies not paying employees what they are legally and contractually obligated to pay. The wealthy have far and away more influence on policy making and legislation than the poor. Everyone votes, but ones polliticians are in office, it is rich donors and people with access to lobying who speak directly to leadership and influence the actual content of legislation.


    Poor choice.. punny that.
    Fair enough. But my point stands. If we are going to talk about the rich, then we shouldn't penalize those who are on their way.
    There is no special penalty. If you are making money in any way shape or form, then it should be taxed with no bias as to how you are making that money.

    We should be concerned about closing or limiting that door of wealth collection to them.
    It isn't closed. You just have to pay tax like you do on any other kind of income. Its like you are saying the most virtuous way to make money is to lend money to people and collect interest. That's where the real virtue is, forgett hard work or inovation. I'm thnking maybe we can not judge what is good earnings and what is bad and let fols decide for themselves.

    Sure it is.. because the IRS can collect whatever it wants from you when you don't pay.
    No, there are specific laws and regulations that say how big penalties can be. They don't just get to decide what they like. When you break the law, there are penalties. If you don't like penalties, pay your taxes. I have no special sympathy for tax cheats.

    Ahh, but now you have abandoned that standard you have been holding too.
    I think you have my arguments confused with someone esle.

    However, even with a millon dollars on the ledger.. one can still be broke. (meaning have no money to spend, as opposed to being poor).
    That is not what broke means. You can sell things of value. I sold a home, it wasn't especially difficult. If you have a million dollars on the ledger, then you can make cash if you need it that badly. You can also take out a loan since you have real assets to back it up with.

    So it isn't an objection to it being very powerful, it is that it isn't some free ride and preprsents a lot of risk.. a risk that some people don't want, or can't handle.
    I am dubious that you could find anyone who didn't want to own a home due to the risk inolved.

    Look, I am telling you.. as a builder. As a person who has done a lot of research into alternative construction. As a land lord trying to provide low cost housing.
    I could build a house that would be worth living in, for maybe 10k (20k if we want to over guestiate). The ONLY reason that I can't is because of regulations.
    And I am telling you that when I did my research nearly every source, including builders associations cited that the regulation cost of new construction is generally about 30% on average. So your finger in the air findings aren't especially convincng.

    You are also ignoring the fact that people without money have built houses out of ONLY their labor for ever..but in our society are simply not allowed to do it in ANY WAY feasable.
    Actually they still do. Members of my family were homesteaders in Alaska. They built their own homes. I'm connected to the tiny house movement. A number of them build their own homes. It isn't easy, but neither is it really all that hard. Land, well that you just have to buy.

    Land is the same thing, one simply isn't allowed to chop up the land or use it in ways that would benifit the poor. There are all sorts of examples of people providing land and homes to the poorest of poor, being shut down by regulations...and I'm not talking about slum lord typ stuff.
    Well, if you don't pay attention to the law, there are consiquences. Many who do manage to succede at this.

    See tiny homes and the challenges gov posses.
    Challenges can be overcome. I lived in a Trailer for 3 years, I'm pretty connected to the minimalist and tiny home movements.

    I'm sorry, that is just ignorant of the level of regulations play on construction and housing.
    It is regulation that makes a home and the land cost $130k instead of 20k. That difference.. directly effects the poor and their housing situation.
    Support this assertiion with some evidence please. You are claiming that regulation increases the cost of construction by about 600%.

    It is regulations that keep a person from building a trailer park... where the poor live. (I know, because it has kept me from building one).
    Strangely there are a huge number of trailer parks in America. I know because I've stayed at dozens of them over two years traveling the US in an RV.

    On this I totally agree.
    However the thread is "what is the fair share of the rich".
    And the fair share is a that it is proportional to how much money they have because it is the money we want to tax. The bigger the pile, the more we tax it. the smaller the pile, the less we tax it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is a Fair Share of taxes for the Rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    1.) No one needs that much money, but you know does? Your country.
    It is interesting how when the Left wants to limit the rights of citizens (assault rifles, large ammo clips, personal wealth) it frames the issue in terms of "needs" (nobody needs an assault rifle, nobody needs a 16 capacity ammo clip), but when the Left wants to limit the government or receive something from the government it talks about rights. As the great thinker MindTrap once asked, "Did Rosa Parks need to sit in the front of the bus?" No, it was her right to sit at the front. So when you talk of the rich not needing so much money, I have to ask - Don't they have the right to earn and keep money?

    Is there a basis for you to judge a "fair share" tax percentage for the rich?

    Or do you think that the rich should willingly pay whatever the country decides to take?

    At some point or level, doesn't confiscation of income or wealth infringe on personal rights? If so, at what point would you begin to say "that is too much tax, even on the rich."
    Last edited by evensaul; February 11th, 2019 at 04:08 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is a Fair Share of taxes for the Rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    You asked how tax impacts income inequality, I explained how, then you objected based on fairness. That makes no sense MT. When explaining how something works, you don't need to make a justification of whether it is good, only say how it works. My point stands, taxes affect income inequality through welath redistribution.
    No your argument doesn't stand, because your moving the goal posts.
    You built an argument for why the wealthy should pay X tax, and part of that argument is that income inequality is an issue.
    The first step for you to build that case is to show that taxes do in fact effect income inequality. (Check you did that good enough for me)
    Second, that has to be a sufficient reason to set a given tax and call it "fair".

    It is this second part that I am objecting to. It is how it makes sense. Otherwise, your not making a coherent argument. you just stated a fact that is not relevant to whatever argument you made.
    So..I guess pick your poison.
    Iether defend that it is relevant to fairness (which I object to) or concede that it isn't relevant to your argument and is thus a red-herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
    The Communist revolution in China
    The the rise of Fascism in the Vymar republic
    The French Revolution

    All cases of internal revolutions due at least in part to extreme income inequality in the nations involved. History has plenty of other exampels but these are some of the bloodiest and they show how populist revolts of the common man give rise to extreme governments bent on high levels of control and violence.
    I do not accept a random list of events, with your commentary attached as "evidence" or "support" for your claim.
    I have no reason to believe that those events were driven by income inequality rather than lack of freedom, or basically slavery.
    The rise of Fascism didn't have anything to do with income inequality, it had to do with foreign oppression.
    I would challenge you to quote any contemporary source of the time of the event that laid any claim to Income inequality as a problem.

    Now, I know I didn't finish, but I have read a good part of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".. which is a massive tomb of a book. I can't recall any issue of income inequality being raised. They blamed their poverty on the rich Jew. As far as I can tell, they were perfectly fine with rich pure blood Germans.

    So your support is vastly over simplified to be accepted as reasonable evidence, and the above stands as a rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    It is not the limits of wealth but the disparity in power and privilage betseen the wealthy and the poor that matters. America has taken a lot of steps to try and mitigate this in the modern era.
    Then you are once again moving the goal posts.
    If your objection is power inequality vs income inequality, that is a different argument all together.
    I agree that many wars have occurred due to power inequality. (like probably all wars ever).
    that does nothing to support your previous argument and is instead a significant deviation from it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    So rich people don't exploit American politics or the American working class. Do you really think that is true? Wage thift is estimated around 19 billion dollars a year in the US, that is companies not paying employees what they are legally and contractually obligated to pay. The wealthy have far and away more influence on policy making and legislation than the poor. Everyone votes, but ones polliticians are in office, it is rich donors and people with access to lobying who speak directly to leadership and influence the actual content of legislation.
    That is not the primary driver of becoming rich in America. Bill gates didn't cheat people out of wages to become rich. Sam Walton didn't cheat people out of wages to get rich.
    Cheating of some is not what you consider to establish what others owe. Also, there is a logical disconnect. If you are talking about wage theft, in the context of not obeying current laws.. that is not at issue. We already agree that they owe that money. So that has nothing to do with their fair share of taxes. If you want to switch topics and start talking about their fair share of prison time, then you are building a case for that.

    But my point stands, the threat of violence from the people is related to how much the rich abuse the law, and engage in gov picking winners and losers. Not in how much more rich anyone is than them.

    Your points here have been about equality under the law. That simply isn't related to "fair share" of taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    There is no special penalty. If you are making money in any way shape or form, then it should be taxed with no bias as to how you are making that money.
    I was just using your logic and reasoning back to you... I guess that isn't acceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    That is not what broke means. You can sell things of value. I sold a home, it wasn't especially difficult. If you have a million dollars on the ledger, then you can make cash if you need it that badly. You can also take out a loan since you have real assets to back it up with.
    You can hear the distinction I made, or you can parse words and play dictionary.
    The latter is not helpful, especially when the distinction I made was pretty clear.
    The rest of this post is going to be more salty, because you are exhibiting a lack of desire to engage the ideas and seem more interested in just posting some rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    I am dubious that you could find anyone who didn't want to own a home due to the risk inolved.
    then you need to get out more. I know at least 3 personally.
    My best friend refuses to buy a home and instead rents because he doesn't want the risk of not being able to move when he wants, like not being able to sell the house for a profit or at least breaking even, and in a timely manner.

    One woman Payed off her rent to own property, but insisted on continuing to pay rental fees. Reasoning "as long as you keep fixing things when I call, I'll keep paying rent". Ie, she specifically didn't want to own the property (even though she had every right to take ownership of it) due to the risks of owning the home.

    As to not handling it.. just drive down an area where the gov gave people housing for free. (plenty of property around here like that due to Katrina stuff). Gov built new houses, people ran them into the ground in short order.
    that would fall into the category of "not being able to handle it".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    And I am telling you that when I did my research nearly every source, including builders associations cited that the regulation cost of new construction is generally about 30% on average. So your finger in the air findings aren't especially convincng.
    Your going to have to take the following as a whole portion, and not chop it up in any response. ... actually don't even bother responding. Just say you reject it, and I'll leave it at that.

    I am dubious that you have viewed any such sources.. and your personal impression is not a sufficient counter to my point.
    For example, did any of your supposed sources compare the price of a structure with zero electrical outlets? How about only 10 instead of the 25-50 an average house would have.
    Your telling me that one outlet in each room, is only 30percent cheaper than the 4-5 currently required? Sorry, but my finger in the air and direct knowledge of the industry says that is ********. .. Wait, you will say that is only a portion of construction.. but that would ignore how every aspect is effected by similar regulations.

    Do you really, really want me to do a line item breakdown for you? I mean.. we debate a lot of stuff on ODN, and rarely do we get to an area where my personal expertise comes into play. This however, is specifically one of those areas where I actually work to do this stuff. So, unless you have someone that knows what the hell they are talking about that is going to directly challenge what I said.
    Your objection is not valid.

    First, I will bet that none of the sources that you can pull up on this topic will consider land usage as a "regulation" but I am. The regulations that say a lot can only be so small, or that only so many dwellings can go on such and such a property. Is an element I am considering.
    An example of this would be like when this local guy had a trailer park, he went over seas and left his wife in charge, who accidentally turned it into a crack den by picking bad tenants. At this point there were some 14 units all low rent. He told her to move the trailers out and not replace them until he returned. So the lot was vacant for some months. The local REGULATION is that you have to replace a trailer within 30-60 days or else the new zoning (which was a ban on trailer parks) kicked in. They missed that, so zero low income units were available. My buddy tried to pick up the lot and install not trailers, but small houses (like 2 bedroom). It would be cut down to 10 units. (for those following along that is 4 less low income houses available).
    He paid money to have plans and engendering made etc. The local counsel (IE regulators) after encouraging him to go forward, then denied his approval and insisted that he cut the total down to 8 low income units, and upgrade the driveways. Which required him to spend more money on plans.. you know those official things that need an engineer to sign and have surveys done etc. So he did that, spending for a second time. Then when it came time to vote, a new regulator was at the meeting and nixed the whole deal. Insisting that he could only place 2 homes on the property. (That would be 12 less than original low cost housing). However, he could not make money on the property with only 2 homes and so zero homes were built.
    I don't know how you want to count that percentage wise as far as raising the cost.. but that alone is more than 30percent.
    Now, what happens is this failure to build is not going to show up on any comparison of costs when it comes to regulations. All the while the regulations stopped any construction at all. (notice, this is not a finger in the air evaluation). The bottom line is, if it costs 25K to buy a lot and put a single home on it of say 100k. Preventing multiple homes from being put on that same lot would increase the cost ALONE by almost 30percent. Even more when one considers the above example involves homes more in the 50k range. 1/3 of the cost would be in the lot alone.

    Second, the type of construction can cause the physical cost to build to rise. So for example I purchased an older home made of cinder blocks. Now I can build this kind of construction for basically the cost of material, because my labor can be free. However regulations would require me to meet a specific insulation value, so I couldn't copy this older home. Which means the difference of adding insulation, sheetrock and then finish or I would have to insulate and then add an exterior layer That would stack onto the lot regulations that would prevent me from building a duplex, rather than a single home... etc. *Note this is not safety relevant*

    Third, and similar to the above is alternate building what so ever. For example I could build a Compressed earth block home that costs 50cents a block, vs the $1.20 per block of the above. But, because Compressed earth Block's are not standard construction local "regulations" would not allow such construction.

    Fourth.. regulation cost comparisons and flood regulations/fema and other...

    None of the things you are going to read are going to be comparing regulations in that way. They are more likely to be like the cost comparisons like we got after the Katrina regulations came down. Where added straps, and new nailing patterns, as well as some other things were said to raise construction costs by 10 to 20percent.
    Of course things like the elevation changes, and the insurance requirements like flood elevation are not included. Because if you bring in 10k dollars worth of dirt to raise the house to elevation, it doesn't get taken into account for appraisal prices. It is also hard to quantify.

    So for example on the flooding. After 911 a little addition was put into the homeland security bill (can't remember the name) which said that Fema had to operate in the Black, and that costs would be directly attached to risks on an individual basis.
    As it is applied, all of lower Louisiana (farther south than Houma), would have flood insurance costs (which were mandatory) rise to some 50k a year on a home worth only 150k(Now this is from an analysis of someone I spoke to who went to Washington to lobby against it). This would have been a devastating regulation to be implemented, as no one could afford it, then local banks would have to reposes, and then local banks would be put out of business because they couldn't afford it.
    So they sort of did a stay of sorts and put off the implementation. The costs are still rising, but the law is still on the books. It is these same regulations that say flood insurance discounts don't kick in unless you are 2ft above elevation. .. No one builds 2ft above elevation, and the elevation requirements keep changing. (*note* some of this info is from a local realtor who was involved in lobbying Washington to put off those regulations.. and of course the senator who put the bill in, has an exemption for her(I think her) district.. because it is devastating to housing costs.

    That all plays into costs in ways the gov had no idea about, and thus would not be included in any of their cost comparisons. But it is exactly those kinds of comparisons I am making, and they are not finger in the air, willy nilly guesses.
    As I said, I have evaluated many projects, had many ideas in which to build low cost housing. Regulations stands as the single most significant factor that either prevents the job from being done at all (Like CEB houses) or increases the costs so as older, safe and livable designs can not be copied. Or where regulations regarding land no matter how inconsistent with the reality on the ground, raise prices significantly

    My point is thus abundantly supported. That when it comes to the poor and housing, regulations are the major cause of lack of availability. It happens in ways that are not commonly thought about or compared. Short of a spread sheet cost analysis.. this is the most robust support for this point I plan on offering. To write this off as a finger in the wind, is intellectually dishonest and sticking your head in the sand.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Actually they still do. Members of my family were homesteaders in Alaska. They built their own homes. I'm connected to the tiny house movement. A number of them build their own homes. It isn't easy, but neither is it really all that hard. Land, well that you just have to buy.
    That is a retarded counter sig.
    In what way is moving to alaska "fesable" for the common poor?
    In what way does Alaska still providing public land to homstead in, compare to how the poor had access to land in the past? Or.. how the poor COULD be offered land locally?
    I mean, If I said i have no place in Lousiana to free graze, and that there is no feasable way for me to graz my cattle on public lands.. are you seriously going to offer Alaska as an alternative?
    It's ridiculous. your taking an exception and acting like it trumps the rule.
    Meanwhile, people who are homeless, don't have any place to pitch a tent legally and instead put it under bridges and then get run off because it is illegal.
    No, my point stands and your being intellectually dishonest at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Well, if you don't pay attention to the law, there are consiquences. Many who do manage to succede at this.
    That has nothing to do with what I said. It doesn't address my point, and it is starting to sound like your just trying to throw out counters, without actually hearing what is being said.
    My point was that the laws prohibt certain things.. and then you respond with some asinine comment about breaking the law has consequences?
    your wasting my time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Challenges can be overcome. I lived in a Trailer for 3 years, I'm pretty connected to the minimalist and tiny home movements.
    This is another non reply. Your truism adds nothing to the conversation, and is worthless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Support this assertiion with some evidence please. You are claiming that regulation increases the cost of construction by about 600%.
    I have addressed this above
    I point out to how land managment effects home prices, creating zero homes where there were 14. I point out how codes create the need for extras all together, or where minimalist requirments are inflated.

    Of course there are reasons for many of these regulations, and safty is generally the point. However that doesn't mean they are necissarily adding safty, and my point is only about the cost side, not the safty side per say... except that they would be sufficiently safe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Strangely there are a huge number of trailer parks in America. I know because I've stayed at dozens of them over two years traveling the US in an RV.
    Why is that strange? Does your personal experience in other parts of america, some how make the local regulations that prevent me from building a trailer park not exist?
    This is just another case of you not listening and trying to throw out some anything to counter what I have said.

    So, maybe I need to clear some stuff up for you.
    I'm not saying that one can't build trailer parks anywhere. I'm saying that regulations that prevent trailer parks from being constructed contribute to increasing the cost of housing in those areas.
    I'm not saying that one can't have a tiny home, I'm saying that things outside the norm are generally viewed with hostility by the regulatory bodies, and this causes costs to be higher in those areas.

    I'm not making absolute claims. There was some guy who built his home for 5k, on his private property out in the mountains of Alaska or some such.
    Unfortunately, that exception doesn't mean that cheap similar housing is suddenly available and legal all over the united states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    And the fair share is a that it is proportional to how much money they have because it is the money we want to tax. The bigger the pile, the more we tax it. the smaller the pile, the less we tax it.
    Proportional is not very specific.
    If we had a 1percent tax (only). That would be a proportional tax, as the rich would pay more money than those who are poor.
    because the rich have more money the 1percent would equate to more money.
    To serve man.

  4. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  5. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,142
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is a Fair Share of taxes for the Rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Leftists love to argue that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York says her plan to transition the United States away from fossil fuels would require people to "start paying their fair share in taxes." https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/alex...-new-deal.html

    Rich people have been allowed to pay far less than our fair share for far too long. - Tom Steyer https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1721033002/

    The examples I could post are virtually unlimited. But the fact that the Left repeats this claim so often requires us to ask, what is a fair share?

    As of 2015, the top ten percent of earners, those making more than $138,000 in 2015, made 47 percent of the nationís income, but they paid 71 percent of the nationís income tax. The top 1 percent, the people former President Obama decried the most, made 21 percent of the nationís income in 2015, but they paid 39 percent of the nationís income tax.

    The system is incredibly progressive. According to the IRS, in 2015, the top 1 percent paid an average tax rate of 27.1 percent, the top 10 percent paid an average rate of 21.4 percent, the top 30 percent paid an average rate of 17.4 percent and the top 50 percent paid an average rate of 15.7 percent. The bottom 50 percent paid an average rate of 3.6 percent.

    Segment ------ Average Tax Rate:

    Top 1% -------- 27.1%

    Top 10% ------- 21.4%

    Top 30% ------- 17.4%

    Top 50% -------- 15.7%

    Bottom 50% ----- 3.6%

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ari-...tax-reform-too (If you have more recent figures, feel free to share.)

    It looks to me like the wealthy do pay more than a fair share, and then some, both in dollars and by percentages, using "equal" as a standard. If you disagree, explain how the above numbers, or more recent figures, support the idea that the rich don't pay their fair share. What is the standard of fairness that you are measuring against?
    To really determine a "persons fair share of costs" of gov't ought to start with are the expenditures justified. After all we currently borrow nearly $.50 for every $1.00 the federal gov't spends! But look at "Trumps wall" instead of seeing an actual problem...


    According to your chart, the top 1/3 pays 2/3 of total extraction...I mean taxes. Doesn't sound too off kilter.

  6. Likes MindTrap028, Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What is a Fair Share of taxes for the Rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    To really determine a "persons fair share of costs" of gov't ought to start with are the expenditures justified. After all we currently borrow nearly $.50 for every $1.00 the federal gov't spends! But look at "Trumps wall" instead of seeing an actual problem...


    According to your chart, the top 1/3 pays 2/3 of total extraction...I mean taxes. Doesn't sound too off kilter.
    This is an interesting approach. So we have two alternatives. We can start with each I dividual and first determine what is the max and min they can be expected to pay. For example suppose we could agree that 50% of income is the max moral ammount we could extract.
    Or we could establish minimum and maximum social needs. So suppose we agreed that we needed a new road from New York to San Fran. Then we could asses how much is fair for each person in relation to the bill for it.

    So, the power of the second is that we actually kinda do that during war or nation threatening events. Like the movie Armageddon. We could have 100% labor and money confiscation, if that is what it took to land bruse willise on astroid to destroy it and save the world.
    The weakness would be that it isn't as clear what is fair in each situation, as only the extreme is easy to recognize. 100% may be fair to save the world and thus own life, but that do I owe on projects that I don't use and don't effect me. What do I owe for a park in Alaska or an improvement I will never use? It seems to me that isage would be the most fair. Like a toll bridge.
    There may be a temptation to say to the person that doesn't have a car, that they are benifiting fro. The roads, but they are paying for that benifit through the costof goods. If a trucker pays $1 for a toll, that would reflect in the price.


    So it seems like the first method is more reasonable and more clear.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Fair Share
    By Ibelsd in forum Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: December 19th, 2012, 05:23 AM
  2. Mind Trapped by "Fair Share of taxes"
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: July 6th, 2011, 02:37 PM
  3. Why should the Rich pay more taxes?
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: February 4th, 2010, 05:42 AM
  4. Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2008, 08:49 PM
  5. The "wealthy's fair share"?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 24th, 2005, 11:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •