How much is a fair share?

[kwc57]

Sadly, you are misinformed.

No I'm not. That 47% of the population pays zero federal taxes is an untruth; what's more, the people who originated it knew it was an untruth, making it a lie and not merely a mistake. Everyone who has a job (and the unemployment rate, while ugly, is nowhere near 47%) pays Social Security tax, which is a federal tax, and therefore pays at least 6.5% of his income in taxes. If his federal INCOME tax burden is zero, then his federal TAX burden is 6.5%.

I don't know for certain that the person posting it here was lying, but the statement is certainly someone's lie.

The 47% figure applies to income tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

 

[kwc57]

Does that 47% they love to throw around include those that are too young to work and those that are too old?

No......but you already knew that.

 

[Dragon]

The 47% figure applies to income tax.

Then, as I said, it means absolutely squat.

 

[Flopper]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

The concept of "burden" is completely subjective, so your rule means the govenrment can take whatever it likes. It's no rule at all.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTT!!

thanks for playing!

As is wealth and poverty. The only thing objective about taxes is the amount of money the government seeks to raise via taxes. From that point on, all decisions are subjective. All our tax laws are the result of the collective opinion of Congress.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

Give me what you think would be a fair percentage (of all US wealth) for the top 1% of this nation to own?





Is there any limit to the percentage of all existing wealth that you think would be fair?

Give me an exact number.

Does this graph help?

 

[Jarhead]

The claim is that they pay zero federal income taxes. . . and it's 100% accurate.

That's not what was stated. It was stated that 47% of the people pay zero federal taxes. No qualification that they were talking about income taxes.

Of course they were, but the implication that these folks are some kind of tax deadbeats was deliberate, and was a lie.

More simply, the claim is either something meaningless and unimportant, or something false. If the claim is merely that 47% of the people pay no income tax, then that is true, but means nothing in view of the taxes that they do pay. If the claim is that 47% of the people pay no federal taxes, then it is false.

only an ass would not realize that thgey were talking about federal income taxes.

The conversation was about income taxes....the debate is about income taxes......so you are sayinmg we should always make sure we throw in the word "income"?

So if you are talking about the Jet-Oakland game...

and half way through the conversation....the guy says..."did you think that was TD at the end of the game?"

And you said "what are you talking about"

And he said "that last play by the Jests"

Would you not look silly if you said to him..."how the hell am I supposed to know you were talking about the Jet game. You didnt say what game it was"

Even though the entire conversation was about the Jet game?

LMFAO...you are pathetic.

 

[Jarhead]

The 47% figure applies to income tax.

Then, as I said, it means absolutely squat.

so the fact that 47% of the people pay no income tax means nothing when you are talking about whether those that DO pay income taxes are paying their fair share?

I mean....really?

What is this....bizzarro world?

 

[Flopper]

The question was about earned income or grades.
Not taxes.
Taxes would be how each is punished or rewarded.

What is the fair share?
How much money should someone be allowed to make?
Why should someone be taxed harder the more money they make?
You can call it a bumper-sticker slogan but, to me, it's punishing success.

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

interesting concept but not sure if it is well thought out.
Take this scenario:

Person A earns 75K a year....after taxes, he nets 50K a year

Person B earns 5 Million a year.....

what amount of take home would you deem an equal burden to 25K of a gross of 75K?

Take home 1 million? 2 million?

Furthermore, who makes that decision and what is it based on?

The highest amount that would not lower economy productive. That amount is decided by Congress.

 

[kwc57]

The 47% figure applies to income tax.

Then, as I said, it means absolutely squat.

Are you intentionally being stoopid? Dear Leader wants "rich" people to pay their "fair share" in income tax while 47% of Americans pay zero in income tax. This means that the other 53% are paying ALL of the income taxes that the gubmint are collecting. Seems Dear Leader thinks that they are not paying enough even though they pay it all and the other 47% are riding on their coattails. This begs the question, when are the 47% paying nothing going to get some skin in the game and pay their "fair share". Zero isn't a share.

If you want to be part of the conversation, you need to first understand the conversation being discussed. Otherwise go back to the kid's table and let the adults talk.

 

[hortysir]

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.

The question was about earned income or grades.
Not taxes.
Taxes would be how each is punished or rewarded.

What is the fair share?
How much money should someone be allowed to make?
Why should someone be taxed harder the more money they make?
You can call it a bumper-sticker slogan but, to me, it's punishing success.

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

I'm all for a Flat Tax

 

[Jarhead]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

interesting concept but not sure if it is well thought out.
Take this scenario:

Person A earns 75K a year....after taxes, he nets 50K a year

Person B earns 5 Million a year.....

what amount of take home would you deem an equal burden to 25K of a gross of 75K?

Take home 1 million? 2 million?

Furthermore, who makes that decision and what is it based on?

The highest amount that would not lower economy productive. That amount is decided by Congress.

I see.
So congress decides what that number is...the "productive/non productive" fine line.

Curious...is this the same congress that ignored warnings about Fannie and Freddy? The same congress that allows the purchasing of $16 muffins? Pays out over a billion dollars in retitrement benefits to dead people? The same congress that lent 500 million dollars to a company that was analyzed and predicted to be out of cash by 9/2011..the exact date they were out of cash?

That congress?

 

[Flopper]

The question was about earned income or grades.
Not taxes.
Taxes would be how each is punished or rewarded.

What is the fair share?
How much money should someone be allowed to make?
Why should someone be taxed harder the more money they make?
You can call it a bumper-sticker slogan but, to me, it's punishing success.

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

curious...

would this mean that the government should decide if someone should be able to pay for and own a yacht or not....?

I mean..here is the reality....

If someone earns 5 million, they can easily live a nice comfortable lifestyle with a take home of 250K......so should they be taxed 4.75 Million?

No, the high end of the tax brackets should be based on an estimate as to what effect the tax would have on the economic productivity of the people in that bracket. Obviously taking 95% of the person's income will destroy all incentive to produce. Whether taking 70%, 50%, or 40% destroys incentive to produce to an extent that it hurts the economy is a question for economists. In my opinion anything over a 50% rate would probably effect incentive to produce.

 

[Dragon]

Dear Leader wants "rich" people to pay their "fair share" in income tax while 47% of Americans pay zero in income tax.

No matter how you try to spin it, income tax is only one federal tax, not all of them. The fact that someone pays zero income tax, by itself, means nothing. Presenting this fact in isolation, without considering what other taxes they pay, in order to create the false impression that they are undertaxed, is dishonest.

 

[Jarhead]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

curious...

would this mean that the government should decide if someone should be able to pay for and own a yacht or not....?

I mean..here is the reality....

If someone earns 5 million, they can easily live a nice comfortable lifestyle with a take home of 250K......so should they be taxed 4.75 Million?

No, the high end of the tax brackets should be based on an estimate as to what effect the tax would have on the economic productivity of the people in that bracket. Obviously taking 95% of the person's income will destroy all incentive to produce. Whether taking 70%, 50%, or 40% destroys incentive to produce to an extent that it hurts the economy is a question for economists. In my opinion anything over a 50% rate would probably effect incentive to produce.

and what would be a determining factor for the lower income people....now..I dont mean low income....I mean lower than the upper bracket.

For example....say someone earns 100K...what would be a "fair burden" on that person?

 

[Jarhead]

Dear Leader wants "rich" people to pay their "fair share" in income tax while 47% of Americans pay zero in income tax.

No matter how you try to spin it, income tax is only one federal tax, not all of them. The fact that someone pays zero income tax, by itself, means nothing. Presenting this fact in isolation, without considering what other taxes they pay, in order to create the false impression that they are undertaxed, is dishonest.

how can it mean nothing when you are talking about how others should pay their fair share of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

Bear in mind...Obama is not saying "fair share of federal taxes"

He is saying "fair share of federal income taxes"

So how can the percentage of people that pay NO federal income taxes be irrelevant to the debate?

Becuase you dont have any comeback on it?

 

[Texanmike]

"Fair" would be everyone paying a fixed percentage of their income.
But that's too obvious.
We have "progressive" taxation for the same reason we have "progressive" politiicians.
It is way too tempting for pols to use the tax code to punish and reward others. And that's what's happened.

Progressive taxation is not a "progressive term". It is a term that was used by the father of modern capitalism. I don't agree with it but I see the merit that Smith assigned to it.

Mike

 

[Ame®icano]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

The concept of "burden" is completely subjective, so your rule means the govenrment can take whatever it likes. It's no rule at all.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTT!!

thanks for playing!

Subjective just as democracy is, where those who don't pay federal income taxes vote to raise taxes on those who pay them.

 

[DiamondDave]

Sadly, you are misinformed.

No I'm not. That 47% of the population pays zero federal taxes is an untruth; what's more, the people who originated it knew it was an untruth, making it a lie and not merely a mistake. Everyone who has a job (and the unemployment rate, while ugly, is nowhere near 47%) pays Social Security tax, which is a federal tax, and therefore pays at least 6.5% of his income in taxes. If his federal INCOME tax burden is zero, then his federal TAX burden is 6.5%.

I don't know for certain that the person posting it here was lying, but the statement is certainly someone's lie.

No.. and this has been shown, with the numbers, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...

You holding your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la la la la" does not take away from the fact...

 

[Texanmike]

Dear Leader wants "rich" people to pay their "fair share" in income tax while 47% of Americans pay zero in income tax.

No matter how you try to spin it, income tax is only one federal tax, not all of them. The fact that someone pays zero income tax, by itself, means nothing. Presenting this fact in isolation, without considering what other taxes they pay, in order to create the false impression that they are undertaxed, is dishonest.

Do you believe that they pay a significant portion of their income to the federal government? If they pay $1000 in taxes and get back $4000 they are making $3000. They must be paying another $3000 in taxes to even be just a zero liability voter.

Mike

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

The question was about earned income or grades.
Not taxes.
Taxes would be how each is punished or rewarded.

What is the fair share?
How much money should someone be allowed to make?
Why should someone be taxed harder the more money they make?
You can call it a bumper-sticker slogan but, to me, it's punishing success.

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

Fair is subjective... burden is subjective

So stop all this 'fair' bullshit... the government should not be in the business of 'fair'... it should be in the the business of equal treatment of all by law under government... period.. hence every citizen, and every dollar earned by every citizen, taxed or treated the exact same way