VBPR&C Debate Topic #4 - What is "Fair"?
 

In the most simplistic view, one side of a debate wants the entire economic pie divided equally between everyone. The other side feels that those who put more into the production of the pie should entitled to a bigger slice.

Each side feels their approach is "fair" and by implication that the other is not.

What sayeth VBPR&C?

You made it, you keep it. A portion of everybodys income should go to pay for government services, such as military, police, and fire, however those services shouldn't be paid more than the private sector.. The rest is just theft.

A budget should be set to cover minimum government services including debt service...then tax rates should be set accordingly across the board. Nobody should get off not contributing to their country.

There is no "Fair". There is winning and there is losing and there is the Law of the land. Fair has nothing to do with life. It's an illusion perpetrated by losers, deadbeats and Democrats.

One's fair share consists of what that individual has lawfully earned plus what was given with no coercion.

Anything else, such as what has been stolen by that individual or taken from another by another and then given, is not part of one's fair share.

The elites in DC are the same as the old commie elites in MOSCOW, who went ape shit after the SU collapsed, because the rest of the misSSSSSS managed economy simply could not afford the collective stupidity coming out of MOSCOW, so the old farts rioted and protested.....

but you know Putin is not a whole lot better, but at least most of the border countries are no longer under their thumb.....

and notice how they run their own show.....

WE are enduring the money the SU spend to influence many a professor in all the colleges across the land, for some 50 years or better, so we have a bunch of socialists/communists that dunno their ass from a hole in the ground, never held a REAL JOB, and thinks importing shit from some slave country with a currency not worth much because of manipulation, is a GOOD thing....

SO we get this uber klass of .gov workers that don't DO anything all damn day, and they all listen to all the whiners in the world, ....which were financed by the old Soviet Union....had the SU known just how effective their efforts WERE, they may have hung in there,

but no mistake, this country is in TROUBLE, BIG TYME.......

:sadangel:

Thanks for the responses so far. Good thoughts.

As for myself, I would offer that what is "fair" should be assessed not only in the short term but in the long term as well. Since rewarding the producers is how to insure that anothre pie is baked, it would seem to me that that version is inherently more "fair." Thoughts?

While it sounds good remember that producers can turn into takers and Vice Versa.

What we need to have is the law. And the laws sole duty is to maintain as level a playing field as possible. So when the Producers get so powerful they cannot stifle anyone from trying.And the law should prevent the takers, when reproducing into a majority, from taking from producers simply due to their numbers. Rewarding failure and stupidity is neither fair nor a recipe for a solid civilization.

And that law should allow the freedom to move up as well as down the food chain.


There is no fair. There is only winners and losers. And sometimes luck. But their is Never fair.

You earn it, it's yours. Whether it's $50,000 or $500,000. I don't want what I didn't earn, it's not mine, I have no rights to it. (Excluding a lottery win naturally)

However, the tax laws need to be overhauled somehow so the ultra rich can no longer play a shell game with their assets.

That would be somewhat more fair.

Why worry about their assets?

It's the earning we have to worry about. Someone who earns a great deal in a lifetime yet spends it lavishly VS someone who earns decent amount and saves wisely? Why punish the correct behavior? thats neither "Fair" nor conducive to long term financial stability.

Your post confuses me. :confused5:

I don't know for sure, but I do know that the modern Democratic party is somehow radically to the left of even Karl Marx on that point.

Marx advocated "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That is apparently just too right-wing for the Democratic party, which instead champions from each of the 51% according to their ability, and then some, and to each of the 49% according to their every want and desire, whatever it takes to get the votes.

Insane. https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/i...ons/icon13.gif

Why are you concerned about their assets?

Why are you not concerned about their income?

I meant income, assets was the wrong choice of words.

OK. So the "Shell games" on income are created to influence behavior. Why not just stop trying to ave government influence behavior and allow the market to decide?

Go to flat tax, no deductions formula for all?

Make 10K pay the same percentage as someone making $1,000,000,000.00

Won't work, there is no incentive to be successful. Why should 1% of the population pay 28% of the country's tax burden, just because they can afford it? Doesn't seem fair to me.

In the places were flat taxes were introduced, like Russia, The tax revenue went up simply because it was cheaper to pay the tax than try to avoid it.

At the same time the lower class people now had to pay and their demand for social services went down because they knew that using them would cost them money.

And yes there is an incentive to be successful. You now have the same tax rate no matter what you earn. Hitting that Bubble in graduated tax rates where your income is rising but your tax rate are growing faster yet your deduction are not growing causes many to lose incentive AND capital to invest.

And there is no FAIR. Only what works. given todays tax rates the top 1% pay 36.7% and the top 10% pay over 70%. the Bottom 50% pay les than 3%.

That just unsustainable.

I'd like to see ALL "Income Taxes" go away, and simply a "Consumption Tax" be instituted instead.

If you can't afford to buy something and pay the tax on it, then you don't buy it. The tax rate is what is negotiable (I would suggest starting with a flat 11% across the board, then adjust in small increments). But, this way, EVERYONE in the entire country has a stake in the success of her, big and small. Not just the top 51%, not the top 10%, not the "uber rich that can afford it" top 1% either. EVERYONE.

:shrug:

Ugh...taxes...I will not even get started on this, I was having this discussion with a friend last night. Not imcome taxes, but property taxes. I live on family propery my grandparents paid cash for in the 40's (about 70 years ago for you non math people :D) and I pay more in property taxes each year then they paid when they bought the property.

Consumption taxes are regressive and penalize those int he lower economic brackets the most. Since they spend most of their income VS higher earners save significant amounts or invest. Flat tax, IMHO is the way to go.

Take a look at your school board and money spent there. The problem with Property taxes is that everyone wants good things for their kids but don't want pay for them once they don't have kids.

We in the USA pay more per student for education than any other country in the world except Switzerland yet we are among the lowest industrialized country in the world for quality education.