Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[PaintMyHouse]

no. it was merely a distinction for clarification to actually begin arguing.

However, let's start with a moral point. Is an Iron Age work ethic of "work or die" really appropriate in one of the world's largest economies in modern Information Age times. And, if it is appropriate, is it also an injunction on wealthy capitalists regardless of wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

.01% on 1K up to 500K, at which point it is always 50%, make as much as you like.

And estates, 50%, you can't take it with you and it's not good for society to pass it on. See Smith, Adam.

Why should anyone believe that's "fair?"

Actually it isn't fair, but it will do. What's fair you couldn't deal with.

 

[ninja007]

so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism?

Incoherent again. Please! Please respond with complete thoughts that actually fit the context of the post you are replying to.

no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism. equality is a Social concept not a Capital concept.

Equality is an American concept. You all have equality of opportunity. Nowhere are you guaranteed equality of outcome. Outcome is based on effort, not entitlement.

Really, guy WTF does "no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism." mean? Is someone other than you supposed to be able to respond, or do you just like to type gibberish?

equality is not a Capital concept.

I SAID, it is an AMERICAN concept, dingbat. Equality is there for you all you have to do is want it enough to work for it. No one owes you shit other than an even chance, My wealth in no way limits yours, as a matter of fact, I'd rather you were at least as well off as me. Poor people are lousy customers.

Conservatives want to lift others up..Dems keep them down. We want all to be rich.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Incoherent again. Please! Please respond with complete thoughts that actually fit the context of the post you are replying to.

no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism. equality is a Social concept not a Capital concept.

Equality is an American concept. You all have equality of opportunity. Nowhere are you guaranteed equality of outcome. Outcome is based on effort, not entitlement.

Really, guy WTF does "no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism." mean? Is someone other than you supposed to be able to respond, or do you just like to type gibberish?

equality is not a Capital concept.

I SAID, it is an AMERICAN concept, dingbat. Equality is there for you all you have to do is want it enough to work for it. No one owes you shit other than an even chance, My wealth in no way limits yours, as a matter of fact, I'd rather you were at least as well off as me. Poor people are lousy customers.

Conservatives want to lift others up..Dems keep them down. We want all to be rich.

Dems acknowledge the truth, you won't be rich.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

.01% on 1K up to 500K, at which point it is always 50%, make as much as you like.

And estates, 50%, you can't take it with you and it's not good for society to pass it on. See Smith, Adam.

Why should anyone believe that's "fair?"

Actually it isn't fair, but it will do. What's fair you couldn't deal with.

"It will do" to accomplish what, impose your fascist police state?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

.01% on 1K up to 500K, at which point it is always 50%, make as much as you like.

And estates, 50%, you can't take it with you and it's not good for society to pass it on. See Smith, Adam.

Why should anyone believe that's "fair?"

Actually it isn't fair, but it will do. What's fair you couldn't deal with.

"It will do" to accomplish what, impose your fascist police state?

Pay our bills.

 

[ninja007]

no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism. equality is a Social concept not a Capital concept.

Equality is an American concept. You all have equality of opportunity. Nowhere are you guaranteed equality of outcome. Outcome is based on effort, not entitlement.

Really, guy WTF does "no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism." mean? Is someone other than you supposed to be able to respond, or do you just like to type gibberish?

equality is not a Capital concept.

I SAID, it is an AMERICAN concept, dingbat. Equality is there for you all you have to do is want it enough to work for it. No one owes you shit other than an even chance, My wealth in no way limits yours, as a matter of fact, I'd rather you were at least as well off as me. Poor people are lousy customers.

Conservatives want to lift others up..Dems keep them down. We want all to be rich.

Dems acknowledge the truth, you won't be rich.

? No libs are rich? No one has ever gone from poor to rich?

 

[Ernie S.]

They are not "our" bills. What the government is empowered to provide could be paid for with half the taxes the IRS collects. THOSE are our bills. You want me to pay "your" bills too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Equality is an American concept. You all have equality of opportunity. Nowhere are you guaranteed equality of outcome. Outcome is based on effort, not entitlement.

Really, guy WTF does "no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism." mean? Is someone other than you supposed to be able to respond, or do you just like to type gibberish?

equality is not a Capital concept.

I SAID, it is an AMERICAN concept, dingbat. Equality is there for you all you have to do is want it enough to work for it. No one owes you shit other than an even chance, My wealth in no way limits yours, as a matter of fact, I'd rather you were at least as well off as me. Poor people are lousy customers.

Conservatives want to lift others up..Dems keep them down. We want all to be rich.

Dems acknowledge the truth, you won't be rich.

? No libs are rich? No one has ever gone from poor to rich?

To believe you will be rich is to believe a lie. It happens, for a few, but not for most, thus making it a lie. Most Americans will never be rich and that is who the Dems support, most Americans.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They are not "our" bills. What the government is empowered to provide could be paid for with half the taxes the IRS collects. THOSE are our bills. You want me to pay "your" bills too.

Show me the numbers, because I know them, so I therefore know your statement is total BS.

 

[Dragonlady]

First off, I used the numbers to demonstrate percentage of income. There was no intention or effort made to make the numbers match actual percentages because we don't know state tax rates, deductions or anything.

We do know that most states have some form of sales taxes, and everyone pays property taxes. For renters, the property taxes are factored into their rent.

So even if the person with $20,000 in income pays little or no federal tax, they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.

The guy with the $1,000,000 income has more deductions and ways of reducing his taxes. He gets to deduct his mortgage. His car is leased or owned by his company, and likely tax deductible, as are the golf club memberships.

My friends had a RV business. They worked long hours, often late into the night, during the season. When they picked up their financial statements for the year, their company had made $100,000, or $50,000 each.

My friend said she couldn't believe they had worked that hard for so little but then she thought about it. Their house and business were all on the same property so all of their expenses for the property were deductible, as were both their vehicles, and even her show horses (they sold horse trailers so the horses promoted the trailers).

So they paid tax on $50,000 each, after deducting over $150,000 in expenses they would have been paying out of net income if her husband had worked for someone else.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation. So, obviously the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

Facts and figures please

 

[Ernie S.]

They are not "our" bills. What the government is empowered to provide could be paid for with half the taxes the IRS collects. THOSE are our bills. You want me to pay "your" bills too.

Show me the numbers, because I know them, so I therefore know your statement is total BS.

What Federal expenditures are authorized by the Constitution? We'll see if we're even close to the same page.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals can pull numbers out of other Liberals' asses. It's their greatest talent.

Change "pull" to "suck" and I can agree.

 

[Ernie S.]

First off, I used the numbers to demonstrate percentage of income. There was no intention or effort made to make the numbers match actual percentages because we don't know state tax rates, deductions or anything.

We do know that most states have some form of sales taxes, and everyone pays property taxes. For renters, the property taxes are factored into their rent.

So even if the person with $20,000 in income pays little or no federal tax, they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.

The guy with the $1,000,000 income has more deductions and ways of reducing his taxes. He gets to deduct his mortgage. His car is leased or owned by his company, and likely tax deductible, as are the golf club memberships.

My friends had a RV business. They worked long hours, often late into the night, during the season. When they picked up their financial statements for the year, their company had made $100,000, or $50,000 each.

My friend said she couldn't believe they had worked that hard for so little but then she thought about it. Their house and business were all on the same property so all of their expenses for the property were deductible, as were both their vehicles, and even her show horses (they sold horse trailers so the horses promoted the trailers).

So they paid tax on $50,000 each, after deducting over $150,000 in expenses they would have been paying out of net income if her husband had worked for someone else.

If they were deducting their home, the IRS is owed some money. I've had rental property for quite a while and only expenses for the income producing portions of said properties were deductible.

 

[Spare_change]

Surely, you jest .... for a second there, I thought I had wandered into the Comedy Room.

I do jest. I jest (or whatever) when people say government employees lack ambition...as opposed to the private sector. People go to school, college, work up the ranks in government just like they do in the private sector. That was my point. Not obvious enough?

That's sum funny shit right thar ..... I worked with government employees for 40 years. You can count the good ones on your fingers and toes ... civil service is nothing more than welfare day care.

My point being that I don't care what your personal feelings are. Government employees are lazier than private sector? prove it. I don't mean mean for you to post anecdotes but to statistically prove it.

Frankly, that's a chicken-shit way to avoid a discussion .... have fun.

How so? I say something you don't like and you call it chicken shit. Give me a reason to care?

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

 

[Spare_change]

The question for conservatives on this thread should be what they think they can gain for the greater good by shifting the tax burden sharply downward. They complain about the unfair rates of taxation on the top and the bottom paying nothing. I see that complaint and wonder how much they think they can get out of the working poor just to make life easier for the wealthy.

can you read? The richest 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 90%.

As a percentage of income, poor people pay more of their income in taxes at all levels of government than the rich do.

If you make $20,000 in income and you pay property taxes, sales taxes, withholding taxes gas taxes, etc,. totalling $5,000, then 25% of you income has gone to taxes.

If you make $1,000,000 in income, and you pay $100,000 of it in taxes to all levels of government, you would say that the person making $1,000,000 is paying more, but he/she is paying only 10% of income in taxes.

The poor person keeps 75% of what they make but the rich person keeps 90% of their income.

This, simply, is a strawman argument that has no bearing on the question ....

 

[Spare_change]

equality is not a Capital concept.

I SAID, it is an AMERICAN concept, dingbat. Equality is there for you all you have to do is want it enough to work for it. No one owes you shit other than an even chance, My wealth in no way limits yours, as a matter of fact, I'd rather you were at least as well off as me. Poor people are lousy customers.

Conservatives want to lift others up..Dems keep them down. We want all to be rich.

Dems acknowledge the truth, you won't be rich.

? No libs are rich? No one has ever gone from poor to rich?

To believe you will be rich is to believe a lie. It happens, for a few, but not for most, thus making it a lie. Most Americans will never be rich and that is who the Dems support, most Americans.

What incredibly tortured logic .... if it happens only once, then it is true. No wonder you can't keep uup.

 

[auditor0007]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Sorry, but payroll taxes are taxes, plain and simple. You also do not include state taxes which are completely regressive and where the lowest income earners pay the highest percentages, in many cases more than five times what the wealthiest pay. Personally, I think the current rates are adequate, but I would like to see the capital gains rate raised to equal the earned income tax rate.

 

[hadit]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

The "rich" are anyone making more than me.
"Fair" is "more".
I decide.

That's the gist of what I see.

 

[HappyJoy]

I do jest. I jest (or whatever) when people say government employees lack ambition...as opposed to the private sector. People go to school, college, work up the ranks in government just like they do in the private sector. That was my point. Not obvious enough?

That's sum funny shit right thar ..... I worked with government employees for 40 years. You can count the good ones on your fingers and toes ... civil service is nothing more than welfare day care.

My point being that I don't care what your personal feelings are. Government employees are lazier than private sector? prove it. I don't mean mean for you to post anecdotes but to statistically prove it.

Frankly, that's a chicken-shit way to avoid a discussion .... have fun.

How so? I say something you don't like and you call it chicken shit. Give me a reason to care?

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

You made a claim that you can't back up, perhaps you shouldn't have made it. Your personal experience doesn't mean anything.

I can tell you that according the Congressional Research Service that public employees are more educated than private sector employees, which doesn't bode well for your claim.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41897.pdf

Education. On average, public sector employees have more years of education than private sector workers. In 2013, 53.6% of workers in the public sector had a bachelor’s, advanced, or professional degree, compared to 34.9% of private sector workers. Generally, workers with more years of education earn more than workers with less years of education.

That's not a complete picture but it's more than you have provided.