Fair Share of Taxes

[alan1]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

 

[Iriemon]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

No.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it would be fair for the government to stop stealing the money that we've rightfully earned.

 

[Seraega]

A fair tax would have to exclude non-discretionary expenses, so sex wouldn't qualify

 

[gezztoo]

Would that include choking the sheriff??

 

[JimCo]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

 

[alan1]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

So, as long as it's income based, and not sex based you are ok with a sliding scale.
Are you a cheap prostitute?

 

[JimCo]

[

So, as long as it's income based, and not sex based you are ok with a sliding scale.
Are you a cheap prostitute?

A sliding scale is what we have now, those who have more sex,( make more money) ... pay more in taxes now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

Taxing the rich a HIGHER percentage actually lowers tax revenue, because those rich people then have incentive to HIDE their money, find all the quasi legal loop holes and pay big bucks to lawyers and accountants to help them protect their money.

Proven fact, when tax rates go down, tax revenue goes up. I believe it was posted earlier that 1 percent of the US population pays 40 percent of the tax revenues. And the bottom 60 percent pay none or a very very small amount.

 

[Seraega]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

Taxing the rich a HIGHER percentage actually lowers tax revenue, because those rich people then have incentive to HIDE their money, find all the quasi legal loop holes and pay big bucks to lawyers and accountants to help them protect their money.

Proven fact, when tax rates go down, tax revenue goes up. I believe it was posted earlier that 1 percent of the US population pays 40 percent of the tax revenues. And the bottom 60 percent pay none or a very very small amount.

This is true. If you look up the numbers the % of tax revenue collected corresponds almost exactly to wealth. Aka, the top 1% control about 35% of the wealth in this country, and pay about 35% of the total tax revenue. The top 5% control about 57% of the wealth and correspondingly pay about 57% of the total tax revenue. Top 10% - covers 68% of total tax revenue and control 70% of the wealth. etc...

link

 

[Zoomie1980]

Fair Share

Over the many years of my life I have often heard people refer to somebody else’s “fair share” as it applies to taxes.
“They need to pay their fair share”,
“They aren’t paying their fair share”

As of yet, I haven’t had anybody define what somebody else’s “fair share” is. I have heard people say their “share” wasn’t “fair” compared to those nebulous other folk.

Let us just suppose for a few moments that instead of taxing income we would tax sex.
Would that all of the sudden change the definition of “fair share” as it pertains to taxes? My experience in life has shown that just as nobody attempts to limit another person’s personal income they also don’t attempt to limit another person’s personal sexual encounters. (Don’t try and turn this discussion into an argument about homosexual rights, or religious affairs, that’s not the point here)

Would you think it fair to tax people based upon how much sex they had?
What would the “fair share” be? Would it be fair to impose higher taxes based upon somebody’s success at acquiring sex? For example, if you have sex once a week your tax is $25 a week, but if you have sex 5 times a week, your sex tax is $200 a week.

Would it be fair to charge a higher percentage of taxes based upon sexual activity simply because somebody has the means to achieve more sex?

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

Taxing the rich a HIGHER percentage actually lowers tax revenue, because those rich people then have incentive to HIDE their money, find all the quasi legal loop holes and pay big bucks to lawyers and accountants to help them protect their money.

Proven fact, when tax rates go down, tax revenue goes up. I believe it was posted earlier that 1 percent of the US population pays 40 percent of the tax revenues. And the bottom 60 percent pay none or a very very small amount.

It's not that extreme but kind of like that.

Top 1% pay about 37%

Top 5% pay 58%

Top 10% pay 72%

Bottom HALF pay only 3% of all taxes.


In theory I believe in consumption based taxes...basically a pay as you go. If you consume extravagantly, you will pay an extravagant amount of taxes, too.

The cool thing about that is that a family of relatively high income that still chooses a fairly frugal lifestyle can grow to be very quite wealthy very quickly under a system like that.

 

[Seraega]

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

Taxing the rich a HIGHER percentage actually lowers tax revenue, because those rich people then have incentive to HIDE their money, find all the quasi legal loop holes and pay big bucks to lawyers and accountants to help them protect their money.

Proven fact, when tax rates go down, tax revenue goes up. I believe it was posted earlier that 1 percent of the US population pays 40 percent of the tax revenues. And the bottom 60 percent pay none or a very very small amount.

It's not that extreme but kind of like that.

Top 1% pay about 37%

Top 5% pay 58%

Top 10% pay 72%

Bottom HALF pay only 3% of all taxes.


In theory I believe in consumption based taxes...basically a pay as you go. If you consume extravagantly, you will pay an extravagant amount of taxes, too.

The cool thing about that is that a family of relatively high income that still chooses a fairly frugal lifestyle can grow to be very quite wealthy very quickly under a system like that.

Naw, the cool thing is that you flip the pyramid upside down and instead of everyone actually paying a fair share you want to shake down those trapped in poverty for the benefit of the super rich... kind of like the wall street bailout.

 

[garyd]

If you have a flat tax the upper 1% will still pay the gretest monetary share of the taxes. The problem is the federal government has got it's damn fingers in far to many pies and they didn't wash them first and the pies are slowly going bad.

 

[Seraega]

If you have a flat tax the upper 1% will still pay the gretest monetary share of the taxes. The problem is the federal government has got it's damn fingers in far to many pies and they didn't wash them first and the pies are slowly going bad.

The problem is that you guys are trying to fix something that ain't broken. A progressive income tax schedule is fine. What needs work are all the abusive deductions and credits, and additionally for the capital gains tax to be put on the same progressive schedule as income tax. It makes absolutely no sense for passive income to be taxed at a higher rate than labor.

 

[garyd]

No it isn't it slows job creation, slackens modernization of plants and a whole host of other things that people like you haven't even sense enough to consider such as the fact that you can only soak the rich to the extent they are willing to let you because they have other options not the least of which is leaving the country and taking all their hard earned loot with them. After of course depositing it in a Caiman Islands bank Account where you and the rest money grubbing bird brains that are busy trying to choke the life out of the geese that lay the golden eggs will never find it. And with that money goes a whole lot of Jobs.

 

[Seraega]

No it isn't it slows job creation, slackens modernization of plants and a whole host of other things that people like you haven't even sense enough to consider such as the fact that you can only soak the rich to the extent they are willing to let you because they have other options not the least of which is leaving the country and taking all their hard earned loot with them. After of course depositing it in a Caiman Islands bank Account where you and the rest money grubbing bird brains that are busy trying to choke the life out of the geese that lay the golden eggs will never find it. And with that money goes a whole lot of Jobs.

Soak the rich? I posted a link above that clearly shows progressive taxation is almost exactly aligned with wealth. How much more fair does it get? Nobody ever went broke paying capital gains taxes....

 

[Care4all]

So then how would you pay for living in the world's remaining Superpower? Would you prefer a pay as you go type of tax code ... pay only for the streets you drive on ... the pipes that carry water to and from your home. What about paying for our defense ... would you prefer they send the bill for your share straight to your house?

No one likes to pay taxes but we do like living here ... understand that if you reduce it for the top 1% ... someone else has to pick up the difference so unless you are part of that 1%, who???

Taxing the rich a HIGHER percentage actually lowers tax revenue, because those rich people then have incentive to HIDE their money, find all the quasi legal loop holes and pay big bucks to lawyers and accountants to help them protect their money.

Proven fact, when tax rates go down, tax revenue goes up. I believe it was posted earlier that 1 percent of the US population pays 40 percent of the tax revenues. And the bottom 60 percent pay none or a very very small amount.

It's not that extreme but kind of like that.

Top 1% pay about 37%

Top 5% pay 58%

Top 10% pay 72%

Bottom HALF pay only 3% of all taxes.


In theory I believe in consumption based taxes...basically a pay as you go. If you consume extravagantly, you will pay an extravagant amount of taxes, too.

The cool thing about that is that a family of relatively high income that still chooses a fairly frugal lifestyle can grow to be very quite wealthy very quickly under a system like that.

zoomie?

this is SIMPLY NOT TRUE

you are speaking about INCOME taxes, NOT ALL TAXES.

AND income taxes DO NOT EVEN PAY 1/3 of the bill, of the yearly budget expenditures.

 

[garyd]

About 45% is borrowed. What's your point?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't really care if its "fair" or not, it has more to do with it being practical.

 

[garyd]

Crippling the economy is practical?