Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Flapper is just flapping his gums. He has no evidence. It just feels like it has to be that way. He just knows there are millions of working households out there where they bring home $10k a year and that 1k in taxes will just kill them.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.
I'd like to see a reputable for the first claim which clarifies what ratio that support represents.
And distributing surplus food created by the government's interference in the agricultural marketplace is not really a solution to a problem. It's a byproduct of making food more expensive to begin with...directly and indirectly.
Im not saying that most or even a significant portion of high-income earners pays little or no taxes. Im saying the mechanism to do so, exist in our tax code and some people use it. Likewise we exclude most of the poor entirely from taxes. This to is wrong. Everyone should pay something. No matter how poor you are, you should pay something even its just a dollar. The fact that anyone can escape bearing a share of the burden makes the income tax unfair for everyone.Ame®icano;4171328 said: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 figuresshare of income and share of taxes paidwere 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?
Im not saying that most or even a significant portion of high-income earners pays little or no taxes. Im saying the mechanism to do so, exist in our tax code and some people use it. Likewise we exclude most of the poor entirely from taxes. This to is wrong. Everyone should pay something. No matter how poor you are, you should pay something even its just a dollar. The fact that anyone can escape bearing a share of the burden makes the income tax unfair for everyone.
Conservatives might say it is unfair to tax the rich at a greater percentage than a poor person, that it is only a means to "punish" a person for being "successful". However, if you think about this, a progressive tax system is perfectly fair, because as you make more money, the utility value of money decreases. Utility is a measure for the degree of happiness or benefit something of value gives you.
It is true that the more you have of something, the less utility value each additional unit carries. This is called "diminishing returns". For example, you like chocolate ice cream, and you enter into an ice cream cone eating contest. After eating one cone, you gain a certain amount of satisfaction. After eating your second, you gain satisfaction, but it is less than the original. Once you've devoured the third, you're starting to get sick of eating ice cream. You barely choke down the fourth, and refuse the fifth because you just don't want to eat any more chocolate ice cream.
This principle is also true with money. The richer you become (the more dollars you have), the less utility value each extra dollar has.
For example, if a person making 30,000 dollars a year gets a 3000 dollar raise, it will mean a significant increase in the person's standard of living (total utility). They might be able to put money down for a new car to replace their old clunker, or take a trip to Hawaii, or move into a better appartement, eat at fancier restaurants. This is a 10% increase in income, but because the person has relatively few dollars, the utility increase is very high.
Now take a person making 3 million dollars a year. Suddenly they get a 300,000 dollar raise (that's 10% of their income, the same as the poor person). The utility difference between 3 million and 3.3 million is not significant. At 3 million dollars, the rich person is probably living in the most luxurious house they desire to, they probably eat at the finest restaurants available already. They most likely have a lot of their income invested, put to the purpose of making even more money. An extra 300k a year is not going to mean much to their standard of living.
Now, if you tax each person at a rate of 10% (lets assume both their salaries have reverted to the original 30k and 3 mil) the poorer person will bear a higher utility burden from this tax than the rich person, because the poorer person's marginal dollar carries more value than the rich person's. Therefore the flat tax rate of 10% is unfair.
If we want to maximize society's standard of living, we need not to equalize the percentage of income people pay in taxes, but rather to try to equalize the utility burden borne by each income bracket. This means charging the rich a greater percentage of their income, and probably charging the poorer person less of a percentage.
An economic argument for the fairness of a progressive tax system - Democratic Underground
Thats the question.
No one seems to want to come up with a figure.
Personally I think the rich pay their "fair share" in Fed taxes especially when you consider 47% of the population pay nothing in Fed taxes.
Perhaps Obama and his minions would be happy to confiscate every dime the wealthy have?
Of course if that happened there would be no rich for anyone to bellyache about and the middle class would be paying for everything.
Thats the question.
No one seems to want to come up with a figure.
Personally I think the rich pay their "fair share" in Fed taxes especially when you consider 47% of the population pay nothing in Fed taxes.
Perhaps Obama and his minions would be happy to confiscate every dime the wealthy have?
Of course if that happened there would be no rich for anyone to bellyache about and the middle class would be paying for everything.
I know it wasn't hard for me to pick a number.
I said 50% of total income...that means ALL TAXES into account. If the federal income tax was 50% for someone then they should not have to pay a single other tax.
All taxes adding up to 50% of total income for those making 7 figures.....for every 100,000 under that you drop it by 5% or something and then by 1% for every 10k under 100k.
Sound good?
To be fair, there should be no loopholes that allow anyone whether they rich or poor to escape all taxes. That would mean the elimination of almost all deductions and credits. The tax brackets could then be lowered but would still be progressive.Ame®icano;4175179 said:Im not saying that most or even a significant portion of high-income earners pays little or no taxes. Im saying the mechanism to do so, exist in our tax code and some people use it. Likewise we exclude most of the poor entirely from taxes. This to is wrong. Everyone should pay something. No matter how poor you are, you should pay something even its just a dollar. The fact that anyone can escape bearing a share of the burden makes the income tax unfair for everyone.
Conservatives might say it is unfair to tax the rich at a greater percentage than a poor person, that it is only a means to "punish" a person for being "successful". However, if you think about this, a progressive tax system is perfectly fair, because as you make more money, the utility value of money decreases. Utility is a measure for the degree of happiness or benefit something of value gives you.
It is true that the more you have of something, the less utility value each additional unit carries. This is called "diminishing returns". For example, you like chocolate ice cream, and you enter into an ice cream cone eating contest. After eating one cone, you gain a certain amount of satisfaction. After eating your second, you gain satisfaction, but it is less than the original. Once you've devoured the third, you're starting to get sick of eating ice cream. You barely choke down the fourth, and refuse the fifth because you just don't want to eat any more chocolate ice cream.
This principle is also true with money. The richer you become (the more dollars you have), the less utility value each extra dollar has.
For example, if a person making 30,000 dollars a year gets a 3000 dollar raise, it will mean a significant increase in the person's standard of living (total utility). They might be able to put money down for a new car to replace their old clunker, or take a trip to Hawaii, or move into a better appartement, eat at fancier restaurants. This is a 10% increase in income, but because the person has relatively few dollars, the utility increase is very high.
Now take a person making 3 million dollars a year. Suddenly they get a 300,000 dollar raise (that's 10% of their income, the same as the poor person). The utility difference between 3 million and 3.3 million is not significant. At 3 million dollars, the rich person is probably living in the most luxurious house they desire to, they probably eat at the finest restaurants available already. They most likely have a lot of their income invested, put to the purpose of making even more money. An extra 300k a year is not going to mean much to their standard of living.
Now, if you tax each person at a rate of 10% (lets assume both their salaries have reverted to the original 30k and 3 mil) the poorer person will bear a higher utility burden from this tax than the rich person, because the poorer person's marginal dollar carries more value than the rich person's. Therefore the flat tax rate of 10% is unfair.
If we want to maximize society's standard of living, we need not to equalize the percentage of income people pay in taxes, but rather to try to equalize the utility burden borne by each income bracket. This means charging the rich a greater percentage of their income, and probably charging the poorer person less of a percentage.
An economic argument for the fairness of a progressive tax system - Democratic Underground
I asked for your opinion and you posting an opinion from Democratic Underground.I'm interested in what you think, not what is directed from above. Is this what you think?
What I agree with you is that our tax system is highly progressive.
The bottom half population pays less then 4% of its income in federal taxes. The richest 1% pays over 30% of its income to the federal government.
Question is, if that is not fair, what would be fair?
To be fair, there should be no loopholes that allow anyone whether they rich or poor to escape all taxes. That would mean the elimination of almost all deductions and credits. The tax brackets could then be lowered but would still be progressive.
If you are a conservative, you probably would define a fair tax as a flat tax because everyone would pay the same share of their income.
If you are liberal, you probably define a fair tax as a progressive tax because it attempts to equalize the burden. For a wealthy person, a thousand dollar tax is no burden at all compared to the burden that tax would have on a poor person. When you ask a liberal for a definition of a fair share of the taxes, you are asking for how progressive the tax should be. The progression should be an estimate of the burden the tax would place on various income groups. It would be subjective but there is nothing wrong with that. Most of our laws are subjective, from penalties for crimes to reserve requirements for banks.
Thats the question.
No one seems to want to come up with a figure.
Personally I think the rich pay their "fair share" in Fed taxes especially when you consider 47% of the population pay nothing in Fed taxes.
Perhaps Obama and his minions would be happy to confiscate every dime the wealthy have?
Of course if that happened there would be no rich for anyone to bellyache about and the middle class would be paying for everything.
I know it wasn't hard for me to pick a number.
I said 50% of total income...that means ALL TAXES into account. If the federal income tax was 50% for someone then they should not have to pay a single other tax.
All taxes adding up to 50% of total income for those making 7 figures.....for every 100,000 under that you drop it by 5% or something and then by 1% for every 10k under 100k.
Sound good?
So half the time I'm working, I'm working for the gov't? No thanks. G-d Himself only wants 10%.
Ame®icano;4179038 said:To be fair, there should be no loopholes that allow anyone whether they rich or poor to escape all taxes. That would mean the elimination of almost all deductions and credits. The tax brackets could then be lowered but would still be progressive.
If you are a conservative, you probably would define a fair tax as a flat tax because everyone would pay the same share of their income.
If you are liberal, you probably define a fair tax as a progressive tax because it attempts to equalize the burden. For a wealthy person, a thousand dollar tax is no burden at all compared to the burden that tax would have on a poor person. When you ask a liberal for a definition of a fair share of the taxes, you are asking for how progressive the tax should be. The progression should be an estimate of the burden the tax would place on various income groups. It would be subjective but there is nothing wrong with that. Most of our laws are subjective, from penalties for crimes to reserve requirements for banks.
I completely agree with you about closing the loopholes for everyone. That would have some consequences, meaning rich will pay more in taxes, while poor will start paying them.
Yesterday was another president speech with the same "fair share" rhetoric. You see, he want's to close loopholes, only problem is he want to close them only for the rich. He wont admit it, but that is the class warfare. LINK He keeps talking about sharing the tax burden. If almost 50% doesn't pay taxes, where is the "sharing"?
In my opinion, his "fair share" can never be enough since there is no degree of freebies which lefties can steal that will make them happy enough and wake them up to the fact that all they've accomplished is the creation of a larger appetite for plunder.
Ame®icano;4179038 said:To be fair, there should be no loopholes that allow anyone whether they rich or poor to escape all taxes. That would mean the elimination of almost all deductions and credits. The tax brackets could then be lowered but would still be progressive.
If you are a conservative, you probably would define a fair tax as a flat tax because everyone would pay the same share of their income.
If you are liberal, you probably define a fair tax as a progressive tax because it attempts to equalize the burden. For a wealthy person, a thousand dollar tax is no burden at all compared to the burden that tax would have on a poor person. When you ask a liberal for a definition of a fair share of the taxes, you are asking for how progressive the tax should be. The progression should be an estimate of the burden the tax would place on various income groups. It would be subjective but there is nothing wrong with that. Most of our laws are subjective, from penalties for crimes to reserve requirements for banks.
I completely agree with you about closing the loopholes for everyone. That would have some consequences, meaning rich will pay more in taxes, while poor will start paying them.
Yesterday was another president speech with the same "fair share" rhetoric. You see, he want's to close loopholes, only problem is he want to close them only for the rich. He wont admit it, but that is the class warfare. LINK He keeps talking about sharing the tax burden. If almost 50% doesn't pay taxes, where is the "sharing"?
In my opinion, his "fair share" can never be enough since there is no degree of freebies which lefties can steal that will make them happy enough and wake them up to the fact that all they've accomplished is the creation of a larger appetite for plunder.
I don't think any candidate either left or right is going to campaign on a let's tax the poor program.
I keep hearing about class warfare which is a conflict between social classes. You would think every city in the country had the streets filled with rioters. This is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. Any suggestion that those hurt most by the recession needs help from government or those that actually profited most should provide that help is labeled class warfare.
Ame®icano;4179038 said:To be fair, there should be no loopholes that allow anyone whether they rich or poor to escape all taxes. That would mean the elimination of almost all deductions and credits. The tax brackets could then be lowered but would still be progressive.
If you are a conservative, you probably would define a fair tax as a flat tax because everyone would pay the same share of their income.
If you are liberal, you probably define a fair tax as a progressive tax because it attempts to equalize the burden. For a wealthy person, a thousand dollar tax is no burden at all compared to the burden that tax would have on a poor person. When you ask a liberal for a definition of a fair share of the taxes, you are asking for how progressive the tax should be. The progression should be an estimate of the burden the tax would place on various income groups. It would be subjective but there is nothing wrong with that. Most of our laws are subjective, from penalties for crimes to reserve requirements for banks.
I completely agree with you about closing the loopholes for everyone. That would have some consequences, meaning rich will pay more in taxes, while poor will start paying them.
Yesterday was another president speech with the same "fair share" rhetoric. You see, he want's to close loopholes, only problem is he want to close them only for the rich. He wont admit it, but that is the class warfare. LINK He keeps talking about sharing the tax burden. If almost 50% doesn't pay taxes, where is the "sharing"?
In my opinion, his "fair share" can never be enough since there is no degree of freebies which lefties can steal that will make them happy enough and wake them up to the fact that all they've accomplished is the creation of a larger appetite for plunder.
I don't think any candidate either left or right is going to campaign on a let's tax the poor program.
I keep hearing about class warfare which is a conflict between social classes. You would think every city in the country had the streets filled with rioters. This is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. Any suggestion that those hurt most by the recession needs help from government or those that actually profited most should provide that help is labeled class warfare.
And at 35% they are still seeing record profits.
Maybe because they're leaving in record numbers?......
link?
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 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.
Personally I think the rich pay their "fair share" in Fed taxes especially when you consider 47% of the population pay nothing in Fed taxes.
See the problem is this. They mix up 'need' with 'fair'. If they think you don't 'need' a set income, you shouldn't be allowed to keep it and that's 'fair'.Ame®icano;4165591 said: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.
