What do YOU think a liberal is?

[Charade]

I agree, there isn't any.



Then how do you explain refundable tax credits? Billions spent on failed welfare programs? Progressive taxation?




Labor is a commodity, and as such workers will be paid what their labor is worth in an open market. "Fair" should have nothing to do with it.



There's a reason for that - the labor isn't worth more than the minimum wage to the employer, so why should they pay more?



A very small percentage of people in this country are trying to raise families on minimum wage.



I agree, but you won't find any liberals that believe that - it would end the current income redistribution system.



In most cases, it's because the losses in property tax revenue are made up in other ways due to the increased economic activity associated with the business.




That's cute - if we don't agree with you, we aren't using our grey matter or thinking for ourselves?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I think what I've learned from these 10 pages is not everyone who calls themselves liberal fits the stereotype, which fits what I already knew about conservatives. I consider myself a conservative, but I have very little in common with the current Republican party and I do not fit the stereotype. I do have some liberal friends in RL that fit the mold so much that we joke about it, and I would imagine that there are some of those here as well. I also have conservative friends that are more aligned with the Republican party and and fit that stereotype too. I find that I talk very little politics with the folks that fit the stereotypes on both sides. It just gets nasty and these are otherwise nice folks that I'd like to stay friends with.

 

[MassJester]

Ah, the "great American liberal thinker"...how about just the garden variety liberals?.

Cute. You get 3 style points, but your substance column is still a wreck.

I mean the current tax sytem, yes. .

Oh, well, then you're wrong. Thank goodness we were able to dispose of that.

But that's what the current tax system attempts to do. So how can you say it's absurd that liberals want to redistribute income? .

It does not.

Got it. I'm sure you believe that, but I don't. .

And therein lies the fundamental problem behind the entire discussion.

Support for affirmative action. .

What about it?

No, I'm talking about Lyndon Johnson and his "War on Poverty", I'm talking about John Edwards and his campaign for class warfare, and other liberals that want as many people as possible dependent on the federal government. .

First, calling Lyndon Johnson a liberal is pretty funny. Perhaps you weren't paying attention during his administratio9n.

Second, the fact is that all administrations have contributed to this--it doesn't cut across liberal/conservative lines.

I'm certain you're prepared to ignore anything that doesn't agree with you Robin Hood mentality on how to run the country.

I haven't ignored you. I just find your sweeping generalizations a bit simplistic -- even by this forum's standards.

 

[BuckNaked]

It does not.

The current tax system most certainly does redistribute income. Or do you believe that the money paid out in refundable credits, welfare benefits and other social programs just materializes out of thin air?

It doesn't - it's money that is put into the system by taxpayers, then handed out to people that aren't contributing.

 

[MassJester]

The current tax system most certainly does redistribute income. Or do you believe that the money paid out in refundable credits, welfare benefits and other social programs just materializes out of thin air?

It doesn't - it's money that is put into the system by taxpayers, then handed out to people that aren't contributing.

They aren't contributing? Really? Hmmmm, now that is news. I'll have to jog down to our payroll department and stop those deductions from their checks.

 

[BuckNaked]

They aren't contributing? Really? Hmmmm, now that is news. I'll have to jog down to our payroll department and stop those deductions from their checks.

You consider income tax withholding to be contributing? When they get it all back, plus additional money in handouts from the government, no, they aren't contributing. When they have no income tax liability yet are receiving welfare benefits, they aren't contributing.

Since you say I'm wrong about the income redistribution aspect of the current income tax system, please enlighten me. Where do you believe the money for refundable credits and welfare benefits come from? The federal money fairy?

 

[MassJester]

You consider income tax withholding to be contributing? When they get it all back, plus additional money in handouts from the government, no, they aren't contributing. When they have no income tax liability yet are receiving welfare benefits, they aren't contributing.

Since you say I'm wrong about the income redistribution aspect of the current income tax system, please enlighten me. Where do you believe the money for refundable credits and welfare benefits come from? The federal money fairy?

They get it all back -- are you looking aty the same IRS tables I am?

 

[Charade]

They aren't contributing? Really? Hmmmm, now that is news. I'll have to jog down to our payroll department and stop those deductions from their checks.

If you got those people to adjust their W-4s, your payroll dept. wouldn't need to take any out. But come tax preparation time, some people would still get money handed to them in the form of an EITC credit. Some of that money came from your tax payments.

In my case (as stated on a previous thread), my dfi got an EITC credit which essentially gave her about $300. I wonder if I could have just given her $300 out of my tax obligation instead of it going to the IRS and then back to my dfi. But somehow I don't think the IRS would have like that.

 

[poohandwendy]

They get it all back -- are you looking aty the same IRS tables I am?

LOL, there are MANY people in this country who not only get what was taken from their paycheck back, but also more in the form of credits.

They are NOT paying taxes. They are not contributing. They are being funded by the rest of us. Period.

IMO, there should not be one adult in the country who is not only not contributing, but also receiving tax credits. It's absolutely absurd.

 

[Charade]

LOL, there are MANY people in this country who not only get what was taken from their paycheck back, but also more in the form of credits.

They are NOT paying taxes. They are not contributing. They are being funded by the rest of us. Period.

My household is a living example of that.

I want to see it eliminated but I'm not stupid. She'll miss the $300 but I'm going to take advantage of every tax saving opportunity that I can. My feelings are no different than someone who wants the Bush tax cuts eliminated but won't send in extra to get the ball rolling. Maybe if the IRS sees that people really don't want to keep as much of their hard earned money, the Bush tax cuts would be easier to repeal.

IOW, I'm not going to voluntarily give it up.

 

[DancingBear]

Brenda, certainly there are left wingnuts out there in the blogosphere who fit your profile, but it has no resemblance to anybody I know who would describe themselves as liberal. Just as I don't expect you conservatives to be like the right wingnuts.

Liberals want equal outcomes, regardless of level of effort.

You get this out of affirmative action? Affirmative action policies arose to remedy a situation where minorities could exert much higher levels of effort and still not achieve equal outcomes.

(And just FYI, I think affirmative action policies should shift from being race-based to being socioeconomically based)

Liberals want as much income redistribution as possible, since the people at the top of the income ladder really don't "deserve" to have so much (we're not supposed to notice that the people at the top are paying for the people at the bottom).

Only communists want "as much income redistribution as possible." Generally liberals believe that a greater share of the costs of government should, at the margins, be borne by those that can afford to pay it. We also believe that the wealthy benefit quite a bit from the services that government provides.

Liberals aren't as concerned with national defense as they are with being liked by other nations.

That's a total crock. For example, not a single liberal that I know of wasn't 100% behind the actions taken against Afghanistan. We do, however, recognize that America's power is also related to its moral standing in the world.

Liberals care more about "groups" than individuals within those groups.

Not really sure where you're going here.

Liberals, for all of their crying about the poor, want programs that keep the poor dependent on government so that they'll have a steady flow of votes.

Certainly there are some politicians that might try to play this card, but as a whole I think the most important thing for liberals would be to enable the working poor to have a decent life and opportunity for advancement.

 

[poohandwendy]

My household is a living example of that.

I want to see it eliminated but I'm not stupid. She'll miss the $300 but I'm going to take advantage of every tax saving opportunity that I can. My feelings are no different than someone who wants the Bush tax cuts eliminated but won't send in extra to get the ball rolling. Maybe if the IRS sees that people really don't want to keep as much of their hard earned money, the Bush tax cuts would be easier to repeal.

IOW, I'm not going to voluntarily give it up.

LOL, I am sure.

The flip side of that is the adjusted minimum tax that screws us every year. The government essentially decided that we (electrician and manicurist) are amongst the wealthy and should be penalized for our hard work. It's an extra tax that we 'qualify' for...bend over Mr and Mrs PAW and take it.

It's a real bunch of horse crappola, let me tell you.

 

[Charade]

They get it all back -- are you looking aty the same IRS tables I am?

Yep. My dfi just did this year. She made very little taxable income and had no tax liability because it was under the threshold. Then with the EITC, she actually collected about $300 from the IRS.

 

[DancingBear]

Also, I meant to point out that income taxes aren't the full measure of taxes paid. There are also sales taxes, which are regressive. And there are property taxes which are paid indirectly even by those who rent.

 

[DancingBear]

LOL, I am sure.

The flip side of that is the adjusted minimum tax that screws us every year. The government essentially decided that we (electrician and manicurist) are amongst the wealthy and should be penalized for our hard work. It's an extra tax that we 'qualify' for...bend over an take it.

It's a real bunch of horse crappola, let me tell you.

I don't really think the AMT was aimed at electricians and manicurists, but the failure to index the rate in some manner has really made this a stupid and painful system.

 

[BuckNaked]

(And just FYI, I think affirmative action policies should shift from being race-based to being socioeconomically based)

I agree, and would support such a change 100%.

Only communists want "as much income redistribution as possible." Generally liberals believe that a greater share of the costs of government should, at the margins, be borne by those that can afford to pay it. We also believe that the wealthy benefit quite a bit from the services that government provides.

That's where we disagree. The wealthy don't get better roads, more police protection or more government services than than the poor. While I disagree with a progressive income tax structure, I can see the logic behind those being able to afford more paying more. But getting "more for their money" from the government? Sorry, I just don't buy that. Nor do I buy the opinion that taking from one group and giving to another is not income redistribution.

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't really think the AMT was aimed at electricians and manicurists, but the failure to index the rate in some manner has really made this a stupid and painful system.

That is why I am all for a flat tax. (which will NEVER happen) The current system is definitely stupid and painful.

And no, I know it isn't aimed at electricians and manicurists, just showing that it is somehow aimed at regular Joes not just the mega wealthy, as most people seem to think.

 

[DancingBear]

Regarding the discussion of minimum wages and free markets, I think liberals recognize that free markets have their limitations. Information is not equally available (hence the securities laws), labor is not as freely mobile as capital, labor is less able to exercise its relative market power unless it organizes, and the accumulation of economic power in certain industries destroys competitive balance (hence the antitrust laws). I think any sane person recognizes the need for some forms of restrictions on free markets, we just differ at the margins.

 

[Fitswimmer]

(And just FYI, I think affirmative action policies should shift from being race-based to being socioeconomically based)

Boy, am I with you on that one. My DN is economically disadvantaged, but wanted to go to college. Her counselor in HS actually told her that if she could find ANY evidence that she had minority ancestors, she would be able to get into better colleges. She went to an predominately upper middle class HS and she knew minority students that were less academically qualified than she was who got more aid and were able to go to better colleges. A really fair system would be about socioeconomic status and NOT race.

 

[MassJester]

That is why I am all for a flat tax. (which will NEVER happen) The current system is definitely stupid and painful.

Ok, I'll sign up for that, a flat tax on all income at a fixed percentage with no deductions, no shelters, no credits, no exemptions.