How much is a fair share?

[Flopper]

a flat tax would destroy the socialist income redistribution dreams of the left !! if republicans could implement a flax tax into law the left would be destroyed !!

So would low income earners. A true flat is the most unfair tax of all. The percentage is the same for everyone the burden certainly is not. A 10% flat on someone making only $10,000 would be devastating. For some one making a 100,000 it would be a burden. For someone making 10 million a year it would an inconvenience.

Many don't want to go over their bracket knowing government will tax them more. Once you realize government will tax you same percentage regardless of income, there is no reason to have brackets anymore.

Here is example. My friend's company hired dozen of people thru the job service for $10 an hour. Service was charging $2, so they were effectively working for $8 an hour. After two months company offered to hire them directly, for $10 and half of them rejected the job, because - if they make more money they would lose gov't assistance.

That's that kind of mentality. They probably started working because they were in danger of losing assistance.

Anyways, why flat tax is unfair?

Whether a tax is fair or not depends on your definition of fair tax. A flat tax takes the same portion of each person's income but is that really fair? For a person earning only $10,000 a 10% tax is likely to require him to give up some necessities of life. For a multimillionaire the 10% tax will require no sacrifice of necessities. Things such food stamps, welfare, and income exclusions help mitigate the problem for the poor but does not correct the inequity for middle class.

Going to a higher tax bracket just means that earnings in the higher bracket are going to be subject to 3% or 5% more income tax. I seriously doubt anyone is going give up work because they are required to pay 3% or 5% more tax on the additional earnings. When we had large jumps in brackets, say 70% to 90% that may have been true.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why the refusal by the Republicans to fix the tax code? Those who have been "rewarded" need to pay.

The federal government didn't reward them, nimrod. The federal government isn't entitled to jack squat. Neither are the tics who feed on it.

 

[Flopper]

A million dollar tax payment sounds like a burden to me any way you slice it. A thousand dollar payment doesn't. It would all depend on his budget.

Someone making only $10,000 a year that had to give up $1,000 would almost surely have to give up necessities. That's not going to be the case with someone making 10 million. Sure they might have to sell their yacht, but they aren't going to have sleep in cold apartment this winter and give up taking their kid to demist.

 

[The Rabbi]

A million dollar tax payment sounds like a burden to me any way you slice it. A thousand dollar payment doesn't. It would all depend on his budget.

Someone making only $10,000 a year that had to give up $1,000 would almost surely have to give up necessities. That's not going to be the case with someone making 10 million. Sure they might have to sell their yacht, but they aren't going to have sleep in cold apartment this winter and give up taking their kid to demist.

NEither will the person making $10k. First off, there aren't such people who are heads of households. Second, people on the lowest income scale qualify for gov't benefits so their income is actually understated.
In any case, since "burden" is a subjective judgment it cannot be used to qualify what is fair.
Everyone pays the same rate sounds about as fair as we're going to get.

 

[Ame®icano]

So would low income earners. A true flat is the most unfair tax of all. The percentage is the same for everyone the burden certainly is not. A 10% flat on someone making only $10,000 would be devastating. For some one making a 100,000 it would be a burden. For someone making 10 million a year it would an inconvenience.

Many don't want to go over their bracket knowing government will tax them more. Once you realize government will tax you same percentage regardless of income, there is no reason to have brackets anymore.

Here is example. My friend's company hired dozen of people thru the job service for $10 an hour. Service was charging $2, so they were effectively working for $8 an hour. After two months company offered to hire them directly, for $10 and half of them rejected the job, because - if they make more money they would lose gov't assistance.

That's that kind of mentality. They probably started working because they were in danger of losing assistance.

Anyways, why flat tax is unfair?

Whether a tax is fair or not depends on your definition of fair tax. A flat tax takes the same portion of each person's income but is that really fair? For a person earning only $10,000 a 10% tax is likely to require him to give up some necessities of life. For a multimillionaire the 10% tax will require no sacrifice of necessities. Things such food stamps, welfare, and income exclusions help mitigate the problem for the poor but does not correct the inequity for middle class.

Going to a higher tax bracket just means that earnings in the higher bracket are going to be subject to 3% or 5% more income tax. I seriously doubt anyone is going give up work because they are required to pay 3% or 5% more tax on the additional earnings. When we had large jumps in brackets, say 70% to 90% that may have been true.

I appreciate your try to explain your position. Here is mine.

First, someone who make $10,000 a year already pays around $750 just in SS and Medicare taxes. Even it's hard to believe that someone lives on $9,250 a year, I don't think that additional $250-$500 in taxes would make too much difference. We should call it shared sacrifice.

Second, someone making $10,000 is way below poverty line and will get government assistance.

Third, someone who's making $10,000 a year, with federal minimum wage set at $7.25, works only 26 hours a week. Well, maybe that person should consider working full time that will brings in additional $5,000 and will be able to afford to pay his "fair share" in taxes.

Edit:

In regards to higher earners, I already posted image with IRS tax brackets that shows that highest earners pay the highest effective rate, and they already pay a disproportionally high amount of taxes. Now, when Obama says they don't pay their "fair share" why nobody from those who support his opinion is saying what their "fair share" should be? Can you tell me how much should top 1% pay? Or better, can you tell me how much should bottom 50% pay?

.

 

[Ame®icano]

you mean homerism like right wing talking points of a ridiculous anology equating GPA's and 12 room houses with taxes?

Funny...

I posted this (below) and you did not comment on it.
Please tell me how it is a talking point and not a very good analogy.

Read it and offer me your thoughts.

...

Student X has a 4.0 His parents paid for school, he has joined no clubs; no extra curricular activities....he dedicates all of his time to his schoolwork...extra help sessions and study groups.....and after 120 credits he has a 4.0

Student Y has a 2.8. He is putting himself through school by working 30 hours a week. He attends all of his classes and goes to as manyt study groups as he can.....but becuase he is forced to work to pay for school, food and rent, he can not attend ALL of the study groups and extra help sessions and his grades reflect it.

Should the school redistribute the GPA's?

Afterall, the both work hard and dedicate as much time as possible to their studies...but one is more "disadvantaged" than the other.

And if you notice...the students surveyed kept on saying "it is different with money" but no one would say how it is different.

Taxes and GPA are very different. You have to pay taxes. You can choose not to go to college, go to a cheaper school, or get a job and save the money for college.

Only difference is that Congress made a law to pay taxes.
Would you agree to Congress pass the law to share GPA?

 

[Jarhead]

you mean homerism like right wing talking points of a ridiculous anology equating GPA's and 12 room houses with taxes?

Funny...

I posted this (below) and you did not comment on it.
Please tell me how it is a talking point and not a very good analogy.

Read it and offer me your thoughts.

...

Student X has a 4.0 His parents paid for school, he has joined no clubs; no extra curricular activities....he dedicates all of his time to his schoolwork...extra help sessions and study groups.....and after 120 credits he has a 4.0

Student Y has a 2.8. He is putting himself through school by working 30 hours a week. He attends all of his classes and goes to as manyt study groups as he can.....but becuase he is forced to work to pay for school, food and rent, he can not attend ALL of the study groups and extra help sessions and his grades reflect it.

Should the school redistribute the GPA's?

Afterall, the both work hard and dedicate as much time as possible to their studies...but one is more "disadvantaged" than the other.

And if you notice...the students surveyed kept on saying "it is different with money" but no one would say how it is different.

Taxes and GPA are very different. You have to pay taxes. You can choose not to go to college, go to a cheaper school, or get a job and save the money for college.

you can choose not to work....and therefore not have to pay income taxes....
But lets not play that game as it is a diversion from the topic at hand

All things being equal as I showed above, GPA redistribution is just like wealth redistribution....and no one can explain why it is not OK to redistribute GPA but it is OK to redistribute wealth.

 

[Ame®icano]

Where are all the lefties?

They get so loud over anything that come from the opposing side.

Yet, they can't answer simple question. How much is a fair share?

 

[Flopper]

NEither will the person making $10k. First off, there aren't such people who are heads of households.

This statement shows just how far out of touch you are with the real world. Visit a homeless shelter or food bank.

 

[Ame®icano]

A million dollar tax payment sounds like a burden to me any way you slice it. A thousand dollar payment doesn't. It would all depend on his budget.

Someone making only $10,000 a year that had to give up $1,000 would almost surely have to give up necessities. That's not going to be the case with someone making 10 million. Sure they might have to sell their yacht, but they aren't going to have sleep in cold apartment this winter and give up taking their kid to demist.

This is a load of crap.

I assume you file your taxes. The tax code includes something called "standard deduction" that is around $3,500 (not sure exactly).

Standard deduction represent what the government estimate the average person pays in other taxes without having to save all the receipts. Sure, the poor pays sales tax and property tax and other taxes but they got it deducted thru their 1040.

Standard deduction makes sure that poor don't pay taxes and to make money of the tax system.

 

[bobcollum]

The wealthy that don't use off shore tax-havens, or other means of hiding their true income pay their fair share. I don't think it's possible to put a dollar or percentage amount in the air and label it fair, the term is subjective.

 

[pete]

I asked this question on another thread but here we go again.

Obama keep talking about rich not paying their "fair share" but I never heard what that "fair share" really is. There is an argument on both sides, but I would like hear your opinion, how much exactly is the "fair share" rich and/or others should pay? Give me exact number.

It depends on the definition of fair.
The government wants the rich to pay more and call it their fair share, but is it fair for the rich.
I think not

 

[kwc57]

NEither will the person making $10k. First off, there aren't such people who are heads of households.

This statement shows just how far out of touch you are with the real world. Visit a homeless shelter or food bank.

Wait, aren't those non-governmental places that people in need go to for help?

 

[eflatminor]

Sure they might have to sell their yacht...

I wonder how the guy the works in the shipyard building yachts feels about your plan...or the crew that works on that yacht...or the maids that clean up after a cruise...or the guy that sells gasoline to fill up the yacht...or the people that rent slips at the marina...or the guy that works at the manufacturer that build marine navigation equipment for yachts...or the salesman at the yacht dealership...or the receptionist at that dealership...or the cleaning crew that washes the floor at that dealership...or the worker at the company builds trailers for yachts...or the cleaning crew at that company.

You see where I'm going here. For every "evil" acquisition by an "evil" wealthy person, there is a slew of regular workers finding employment. I thought you lefties were all for the working guy. Or would you rather see them on the dole?

 

[Flopper]

Many don't want to go over their bracket knowing government will tax them more. Once you realize government will tax you same percentage regardless of income, there is no reason to have brackets anymore.

Here is example. My friend's company hired dozen of people thru the job service for $10 an hour. Service was charging $2, so they were effectively working for $8 an hour. After two months company offered to hire them directly, for $10 and half of them rejected the job, because - if they make more money they would lose gov't assistance.

That's that kind of mentality. They probably started working because they were in danger of losing assistance.

Anyways, why flat tax is unfair?

Whether a tax is fair or not depends on your definition of fair tax. A flat tax takes the same portion of each person's income but is that really fair? For a person earning only $10,000 a 10% tax is likely to require him to give up some necessities of life. For a multimillionaire the 10% tax will require no sacrifice of necessities. Things such food stamps, welfare, and income exclusions help mitigate the problem for the poor but does not correct the inequity for middle class.

Going to a higher tax bracket just means that earnings in the higher bracket are going to be subject to 3% or 5% more income tax. I seriously doubt anyone is going give up work because they are required to pay 3% or 5% more tax on the additional earnings. When we had large jumps in brackets, say 70% to 90% that may have been true.

I appreciate your try to explain your position. Here is mine.

First, someone who make $10,000 a year already pays around $750 just in SS and Medicare taxes. Even it's hard to believe that someone lives on $9,250 a year, I don't think that additional $250-$500 in taxes would make too much difference. We should call it shared sacrifice.

Second, someone making $10,000 is way below poverty line and will get government assistance.

Third, someone who's making $10,000 a year, with federal minimum wage set at $7.25, works only 26 hours a week. Well, maybe that person should consider working full time that will brings in additional $5,000 and will be able to afford to pay his "fair share" in taxes.

Edit:

In regards to higher earners, I already posted image with IRS tax brackets that shows that highest earners pay the highest effective rate, and they already pay a disproportionally high amount of taxes. Now, when Obama says they don't pay their "fair share" why nobody from those who support his opinion is saying what their "fair share" should be? Can you tell me how much should top 1% pay? Or better, can you tell me how much should bottom 50% pay?

.

There is no way to actually quantify "fair share". I can't tell you what it is, but I can tell you what it isn't. It's not fair that someone can make 10 million a year and through the use of tax shelters, offshore accounts, tax free bonds, and other tax loopholes they can pay less income tax than someone making 100,000. It's not fair that someone making 50,000 should pay nothing.

Our tax system of sales tax, income tax, property tax, gasoline tax, etc is really about as fair as you can get because it spreads the tax burden across many groups. The sales tax is a consumption tax that favors those that consume little in relation to income. The income tax is a progressive tax that favors those that earn less. Other taxes like property taxes and gasoline taxes attempt to tax based on usage or benefit. Then the're the sin taxes like gambling and liquor tax which punishes actions that society feels are determinable.

The problem is income tax. We take a simple straight forward tax and distort it with various credits, exclusions, and deductions designed to favor selected groups and change economic behavior. The income tax should be a progressive tax where everyone pays, which favors low income earners. In reality, it's a tax that favors selected groups such as, home owners, large families, and those that can take advantage of the thousands of loopholes.

 

[DiamondDave]

I asked this question on another thread but here we go again.

Obama keep talking about rich not paying their "fair share" but I never heard what that "fair share" really is. There is an argument on both sides, but I would like hear your opinion, how much exactly is the "fair share" rich and/or others should pay? Give me exact number.

It depends on the definition of fair.
The government wants the rich to pay more and call it their fair share, but is it fair for the rich.
I think not

Jealousy and envy makes people vote for governmental officials who like to use the word fair... when government should be worried about equal treatment under law and not some subjective bullshit concept of 'fairness'

 

[The Rabbi]

NEither will the person making $10k. First off, there aren't such people who are heads of households.

This statement shows just how far out of touch you are with the real world. Visit a homeless shelter or food bank.

In other words you have no evidence. I doubt you've ever seen anyone making $10k a year who was head of household.

 

[Ame®icano]

There is no way to actually quantify "fair share". I can't tell you what it is, but I can tell you what it isn't. It's not fair that someone can make 10 million a year and through the use of tax shelters, offshore accounts, tax free bonds, and other tax loopholes they can pay less income tax than someone making 100,000. It's not fair that someone making 50,000 should pay nothing.

I see where you coming from and I partially agree with you.

Are there loopholes? Yes, there are, everywhere and on the both sides.

I say close them, but close them all. No tax shelters, no free bonds, no loopholes for rich, but no loopholes for anyone else. That means, no more standard deductions, charity write offs etc.

Now, it's not really truth, and you know it, that someone who makes $10 millions pays less income taxes then someone who makes $100,000. On this link you can find tax rates and you'll notice that top 10% pay an effective rate of 27% and all other groups pay less.

Also, according to CNN, some 47% of households, or 71 million, do not owe any federal income tax. Any???

CNNMoney

Our tax system of sales tax, income tax, property tax, gasoline tax, etc is really about as fair as you can get because it spreads the tax burden across many groups. The sales tax is a consumption tax that favors those that consume little in relation to income. The income tax is a progressive tax that favors those that earn less. Other taxes like property taxes and gasoline taxes attempt to tax based on usage or benefit. Then the're the sin taxes like gambling and liquor tax which punishes actions that society feels are determinable.

Why sales tax favors those that consume less in relation to income? Hey, if someone wants to save money, let him save, how someone spends or save money is not my problem. If he spend twice as much as someone who makes ten times less, he still pays twice as much taxes then the other one.

Why do we have to have progressive taxing? Why to favor anyone?

The problem is income tax. We take a simple straight forward tax and distort it with various credits, exclusions, and deductions designed to favor selected groups and change economic behavior. The income tax should be a progressive tax where everyone pays, which favors low income earners. In reality, it's a tax that favors selected groups such as, home owners, large families, and those that can take advantage of the thousands of loopholes.

You got me confused. You said income tax should be progressive where everyone pays, but it should favor low income earners. Right now low earners don't pay income taxes. If everyone should pay, that also includes low earners, why to favor anyone?

Here is nice link to The Tax Foundation

Incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation's income and income taxes paid. In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

All they pay now is not enough. That brings me back to the reason I started this thread, if Obama claims that the highest earners need to pay their fair share, and his supporters are all for it, what is that fair share, really?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I asked this question on another thread but here we go again.

Obama keep talking about rich not paying their "fair share" but I never heard what that "fair share" really is. There is an argument on both sides, but I would like hear your opinion, how much exactly is the "fair share" rich and/or others should pay? Give me exact number.

No more than 50%, in total (that means federal, state, fica, medicare, excise, sales, services, energy, communications, IE ALL TAXES)

You should not have to give up more than 50% of what you earn in taxes for any reason ever.

Thats my limit.....and that percentage shrinks for those making less than 7 figures.

 

[Flopper]

NEither will the person making $10k. First off, there aren't such people who are heads of households.

This statement shows just how far out of touch you are with the real world. Visit a homeless shelter or food bank.

Wait, aren't those non-governmental places that people in need go to for help?

Most homeless shelters receive federal grants as well as state and local support. Some are operated by local government. Donations to food banks come from local groceries, farmers, and the pubic, however federal programs buy and distribute excess farm products which supplement other sources.