Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[thereisnospoon]

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

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation.

That's awful! What is the income range for middle class?
What percentage do they pay?

How dare you..You just shut your trap and accept what the OP claimed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Would we even have our wasteful wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates for them?

What the fuck kind of stupid question is THAT....Get out....Just get out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

Probably not a great idea. How about we start out eliminating tax refunds for people who pay no Income tax?

My sister in law....The lazy black sheep of the family has been on public assistance for as long as I can remember.
During the Bush 43 admin when that $600 tax refund was given to all taxpayers She threw an absolute shit fit. She was pissing and moaning how it wasn't fair that she wasn't getting a refund check...
I told her point blank...."you would have had paid taxes in order to get a refund"....She didn't like hearing that at all.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation.

That's awful! What is the income range for middle class?
What percentage do they pay?

The middle class pays income tax and payroll taxes. The leisure class often only pays capital gains tax.

Oh please....What one so called member of you 'leisure class'...BTW does that include retirees on pensions as well?....Pays in cap gains in one year will contribute more to the government than you will in a lifetime....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation.

That's awful! What is the income range for middle class?
What percentage do they pay?

The middle class pays income tax and payroll taxes. The leisure class often only pays capital gains tax.

Do you understand that those paying capital gains taxes paid income tax on that capital when they earned it?
Do you understand that capital investment is what allowed people to start and grow the business that employs you?

We all get double-taxed. We get taxed when we earn money and we get taxed when we spend it. We pay tax to buy our cars, tax to drive them, and tax to continue owning them. We pay taxes just to lay our head somewhere.

so rich fuckers can cry me a river.

What's your point?
Just have the balls to admit you hate anyone who you deem as having more than an amount that makes you uncomfortable.

 

[occupied]

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.

Your question is based on a false premise ... you ASSUME that the cost of government should remain the same, and that someone proposed that the middle class should pick up a larger share of the obscene riches given to the federal government.

The minute we put that falsehood to bed, your argument becomes empty.

I do not need a bedtime fairy tale tonight. No one has ever been able to substantially shrink government but they have been able to give large gifts of tax breaks and bailouts to the wealthy and stick wage earners with the bill while cutting the things that help them, it's called the republican platform, you might want to take another look at it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I feel if a rich person has four personal cars, three personal houses, and two yachts ------- while his employees lack healthcare and worry about college for their children ---- then they are likely not paying enough in taxes.

How an individual spends their money is none of your business. And has ZERO to do with taxation.
Unless of course you are another one of these people who view taxation as a means to punish.
Is it?
Nobody cares how you feel.
Tell ya what...See the Padre on the way out...He'll punch your ticket for you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Your question is based on a false premise ... you ASSUME that the cost of government should remain the same, and that someone proposed that the middle class should pick up a larger share of the obscene riches given to the federal government.

The minute we put that falsehood to bed, your argument becomes empty.

I do not need a bedtime fairy tale tonight. No one has ever been able to substantially shrink government but they have been able to give large gifts of tax breaks and bailouts to the wealthy and stick wage earners with the bill while cutting the things that help them, it's called the republican platform, you might want to take another look at it.

Sell that to someone who is buying.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

How does that work with the Right's version of supply side economics where the wealthiest are bailed out and then it trickles down?

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.--Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"What bailout"???
You talking about TARP?
Did you know TARP has made $55 billion in profits for the Federal Government?
Argue with these facts that the "Wealthy" bailout of the below companies has returned ALL the money PLUS $55 billion in profits.

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

I mean, bailing out the wealthiest with the (Other) Peoples' Tax monies.

Face it....You don't have a clue what you mean.

 

[occupied]

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.

Your question is based on a false premise ... you ASSUME that the cost of government should remain the same, and that someone proposed that the middle class should pick up a larger share of the obscene riches given to the federal government.

The minute we put that falsehood to bed, your argument becomes empty.

I do not need a bedtime fairy tale tonight. No one has ever been able to substantially shrink government but they have been able to give large gifts of tax breaks and bailouts to the wealthy and stick wage earners with the bill while cutting the things that help them, it's called the republican platform, you might want to take another look at it.

Sell that to someone who is buying.

You might want to return whatever bullshit you bought that makes you deny what is so abundantly clear, that "budget" the republicans came out with recently is all the proof I need that they are looking to abandon the working class.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

Your question is based on a false premise ... you ASSUME that the cost of government should remain the same, and that someone proposed that the middle class should pick up a larger share of the obscene riches given to the federal government.

The minute we put that falsehood to bed, your argument becomes empty.

I do not need a bedtime fairy tale tonight. No one has ever been able to substantially shrink government but they have been able to give large gifts of tax breaks and bailouts to the wealthy and stick wage earners with the bill while cutting the things that help them, it's called the republican platform, you might want to take another look at it.

Sell that to someone who is buying.

You might want to return whatever bullshit you bought that makes you deny what is so abundantly clear, that "budget" the republicans came out with recently is all the proof I need that they are looking to abandon the working class.

You know it is SO easy for you LIPs to make stupid ass statements like the above regarding the "budget"!
Why don't you do what most intelligent well informed people would before making an assine statement prove it? Of LIPs like you don't know how to do Internet searches.
You depend on others to tell you what to believe. Do some critical thinking for once and also provide your proof for you dumb statement!

 

[thereisnospoon]

A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

How much does she earn?

At least enough to enjoy a thread bare existence....Her pension was lost in the crash of 2008...The one she worked 40 years for and they forced her to retire from..

And ifshe got sound advice, she would have stayed right where she was and waited for the markets to come back. Which they did and in some cases doubled and even tripled...For example the S&P 500 index was around 700...It is now nearing 2100....My variable annuity is indexed to the S&P 500....And I stayed the course.....Glad I did.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Your question is based on a false premise ... you ASSUME that the cost of government should remain the same, and that someone proposed that the middle class should pick up a larger share of the obscene riches given to the federal government.

The minute we put that falsehood to bed, your argument becomes empty.

I do not need a bedtime fairy tale tonight. No one has ever been able to substantially shrink government but they have been able to give large gifts of tax breaks and bailouts to the wealthy and stick wage earners with the bill while cutting the things that help them, it's called the republican platform, you might want to take another look at it.

Sell that to someone who is buying.

You might want to return whatever bullshit you bought that makes you deny what is so abundantly clear, that "budget" the republicans came out with recently is all the proof I need that they are looking to abandon the working class.

How so? Explain in detail.

 

[healthmyths]

HERE is the IDEA regarding food stamps that you idiot LIPs call "abandoning the working class"!
Both Price and Ryan modeled their proposals on the welfare reform of the 1990s, which used block-grant funding to prevent federal spending on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program -- the program most closely associated with the term "welfare" -- from rising beyond a fixed amount.
House Republican Budget Whacks Food Stamps And Medicaid
I don't know if you IDIOTS remember what Bill Clinton did regarding welfare reform? YES the democrat Bill Clinton reformed well fare!

NOW with idiots like the above who don't seem to comprehend the key to reducing "welfare" is more people working and fewer people on food stamps.
And you don't get more people "working" by making statements like these that Obama has made!

-- "I prefer destroying 1,400 companies,putting 400,000 people out of work and reducing tax revenue by $100 billion a year. " which is what he means when he says he prefers a single payer health system.

-- "I prefer higher gas prices".

-- "If a utility wants to build coal burning it bankrupt them!"

-- "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians"!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do the rich receive their fare share?

Well beyond.

 

[Missourian]

A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

Tell her not to worry about it...someone else is paying more than their fair share to pick up the slack.

 

[Truth2Know]

A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

Agreed. Here are some hard numbers about what constitutes "fair share": Who pays their fair share of Federal taxes US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Spare_change]

Do the rich receive their fare share?

Well beyond.

Proof, please ... what do I get that you don't?

 

[Truth2Know]

Do the rich receive their fare share?

Well beyond.

Please elaborate on what the rich receive above which they have earned.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

Tell her not to worry about it...someone else is paying more than their fair share to pick up the slack.

Okay, take the entire wealth of the nation, divide by citizens eligible to vote, send me my share each year and the bill for paying the debt off in ten years. That bill I will gladly pay with my generous new income.