[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Gadawg73]

Most of your life has been one long tax cut:

The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Average is NOT all Americans.
Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.

There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.

What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?

Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.

The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
That is called INDEXING.
A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
I made that point in the other post.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.

Your say so isn't good enough. Provide some data.

Through income tax alone the middle class pays the highest effective tax rate. When you add in payroll taxes the middle class gets completely screwed. Income tax facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. In 2007 once you start making $2 million a year your effective tax rates go down & you are being subsidized. Workers making $200K were paying higher effective income tax rates than billionaires. That is before adding in payroll taxes that make the rates even worse.

And when did this nation destroying trend really pick up steam?

Reagan redistributed wealth on a scale not seen ever before him.

In the 1980s the taxes from all sources remained basically unchanged.
The fact is Reagan's reputation as a tax-cutter is a lie.
Reagan did, however, redistribute the tax burden more toward low and middle income citizens. The filthy lowlife cocksucker even imposed a tax on unemployment, a major triumph in the anals of taxation. Reagan is a textbook example of the 'Fart Paradigm' in which one accuses others of doing what one has done. Reagan's tax policies - followed by every president since that Bobbleheaded cocksucker - redistributed more wealth than any tax policies before him in US history.

Worse, corporate tax policy changed. Many of us were there as quarterlies took first place in the hearts of Wall Street. But that is for another day.

By cutting income taxes while increasing payroll taxes Reagan shifted the tax burden to the middle class and lowest wage earning folks. The total effective federal taxation rate for the poorest one-fifth of American families increased slightly more than 16%.

Meanwhile, the total effective taxation rate for the wealthiest 20% of families dropped almost 6%, while rates for the highest incomes dropped about 15%.

Doing the math we see that 15% of $1000k is $15k, while 16% of $25k is $1.5k. It takes TEN MacDonald's workers to make up for the loss of one mid-level executive's taxes.

Street level nutballs have less understanding of scope and scale than inhabitants of the monkey cage in the DC zoo, an educational anomaly Republicans count on year in and year out, so there is little prospect of a nutball understanding how catastrophic a flat tax would be.

Efficiency is another weak spot on Main Street. One that knows no party boundaries. The truth is it is more efficient to tax high wage earners. The benefits of income-taxing people with incomes below $25k/a are few to none because of the earned income credit - another dead-loss cost Reagan the secret New Dealer put on taxpayers.

People can arrive at "fair". Fair is something like this:

Rates on segments of personal income from all sources
No joint filing, no deductions; business taxes paid separately
No earned income credit, no other tax credits
<$40,000 or so, no tax except payroll taxes.
$40,001 - $79,999 .................10%, no joint filing, no deductions at all
$80,000 - $149,999 ................15% no joint filing, no deductions at all
$150,000 - $299,999 ...............20% no joint filing, no deductions at all
$300,000 - $1kk .....................25% no joint filing, no deductions at all
> $1kk ..................................27.5% no joint filing, no deductions at all

 

[zeke]

Average is NOT all Americans.
Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.

There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.

What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?

Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.

The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
That is called INDEXING.
A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
I made that point in the other post.

Hey it's great that you made that point. Now, how is it relevent in todays world?

 

[Gadawg73]

This thread is THE ONE, ladies and gentlemen. After going over this so many times for all these years with these same people, this is finally it! The conservatives clammoring for a flat tax and whining about how progressive taxes are bad will finally read and comprehend the information that we are giving them!

The facts will penetrate the wall of stupid and we will hear a great sound of hot air being released from the nutter bubble! This one is THE ONE!

I am sure of it!

Income tax invites special interest lobbying and breaks given to special interest groups.
Income tax invites underground economy and massive compliance.
56,000 pages of tax code which many times the best CPAs in the country can not figure out.
Income tax compliance is very expensive and time consuming for the citizen.

Either one supports special interest groups receiving tax breaks through campaign lobbying as is the norm now or they don't.
The current politicians we have now and the reason they DO NOTHING is they do not have to answer to the citizens.
They answer to those that donate to their campaigns so they get tax breaks in the 56,000 page tax code.
Why anyone with a brain has trouble accepting this is hard to understand.

Ah, this post makes more sense. But let me ask you this; IF I were a very VERY wealthy person and I had spent serious money on lobbyists to get the favorable tax treatment that I wanted, why in the fuk would I support changing the tax system to one in which my money would not buy influence and where I would pay MORE in taxes?

Some don't and those that want to solve the nation's problems do.
Most people with wealth are not "greedy".

 

[FA_Q2]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Progressive taxation of income is fair because it taxes money most likely to be used for necessities less than it taxes money most likely to be used for luxuries.

Put another way, if you think that having a sales tax that taxes bread at the same rate as liquor, then you like the idea of a flat tax.

If you think that poorer Americans are undertaxed and richer Americans are overtaxed, then you like the idea of a flat tax.

The single most important change in going from a progressive tax to a flat tax, all else being equal, is that lower income Americans would pay a bigger share of the overall tax burden and upper income Americans would pay a smaller share.

So you disagree with the fact that the rich pay a lesser percentage than the middle class then as that is the ONLY way that a flat tax is going to lower the tax rate on the rich.

It will, of course, raise taxes on those that pay none.

 

[Gadawg73]

I would pay more in taxes with the Fair Tax.
But instead of supporting passing on massive debt to my children and society like most in this country support borrowing 45 cents of every dollar government spends I SEEK SOLUTIONS.
And Fair Tax is the solution.
And end the double taxation of taxing corporations.
That brings back 21 trillion dollars held in overseas banks tomorrow.
Either one is interested in economic growth or one is interested in blaming the rich.
"They do not pay their fair share" is what a 5 year old says.

 

[Sunshine]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.

The issue has nothing to do with a &#8216;fair share &#8216; or some &#8216;specific number.&#8217;

The issue concerns the fallacy of &#8216;trickle-down economics,&#8217; where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.

Let me recommend that you take Taxation in law school. When you do you will see that income tax rates and sales tax rates are not lower for the rich. Sales tax is the same, and income tax is markedly higher. Taxation on income from investments is lower, but that is for everyone as well, and my poor little mother manged to invest so she benefitted from it as well. So could anyone who would forgo the tatts and nine inch nails. There is no estate tax until the estate reaches 1.5 million, I believe, so middle income people can die and leave their property and money to their children tax free. The ones who get caught most often one that on is people like those around here who inherit the family farm or the children of the small business owner who has managed to garner 2 or 3 million dollars. The ultra rich have people like YOU, lawyers (supposedly) who advise them to set up family trusts, mist fortunes, that are not touched by taxes. I mean, seriously, if you are suck a crusader rabbit for the poor, why don't you adivse your wealthy clients in such a way that they will pay their 'fair share.' Oh wait, you don't have clients. That's why.

 

[zeke]

Income tax invites special interest lobbying and breaks given to special interest groups.
Income tax invites underground economy and massive compliance.
56,000 pages of tax code which many times the best CPAs in the country can not figure out.
Income tax compliance is very expensive and time consuming for the citizen.

Either one supports special interest groups receiving tax breaks through campaign lobbying as is the norm now or they don't.
The current politicians we have now and the reason they DO NOTHING is they do not have to answer to the citizens.
They answer to those that donate to their campaigns so they get tax breaks in the 56,000 page tax code.
Why anyone with a brain has trouble accepting this is hard to understand.

Ah, this post makes more sense. But let me ask you this; IF I were a very VERY wealthy person and I had spent serious money on lobbyists to get the favorable tax treatment that I wanted, why in the fuk would I support changing the tax system to one in which my money would not buy influence and where I would pay MORE in taxes?

Some don't and those that want to solve the nation's problems do.
Most people with wealth are not "greedy".

Then it should be easy to name those ultra wealthy that are clamoring for a big change in the tax code. And those changes would not be in their favor. Who are they?

And did I say "greedy"? No. But I sure know that ultra wealthy spend more money on lobbyists trying to cut their taxes than lobbying to pay more tax. Call that what you will.

Do you persoanlly pay money to lobby for your interests?

 

[Wildman]

"fair share" in my opinion would be a "CONSUMPTION" tax.., the more one spends, the more tax one pays.

NO tax on food, medicines, health care and other necessities !

"necessities".., that appears to be a loaded word, BUT !! bottled water is NOT a necessity nor is a $1,567,982.34 yacht !!

 

[Mr Natural]

Whatever the tax rates were "Back in the Good Old Days" are what they should be now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

However much is necessary in order to no longer have a deficit and the national debt is paid off.

But let's add an incentive to taxation across the board. Every time there is less govt spending ALL of the tax rates automatically go down and every time there is more ALL of them automatically go up.

That means that every politician who votes for higher spending has to answer directly to the voters and vice versa. There can't be any "class warfare" because ALL tax brackets are impacted both ways.

The justification for any increased spending will have to have majority support nationwide. Ditto the justification for reduced spending. In essence this acts like a control on Congress by the voters.

 

[Sunshine]

I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.

Before I retired I made over $100K and I paid enough income tax to support a family of 6 under than national poverty guidelines. I should have retired last year because given my pensions and annuities, having fewer work expenses, less taxes to pay including a 2% local tax and 4% state income tax, I can't really tell a difference in my disposable income not working.

 

[Mr Natural]

Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"fair share" in my opinion would be a "CONSUMPTION" tax.., the more one spends, the more tax one pays.

NO tax on food, medicines, health care and other necessities !

"necessities".., that appears to be a loaded word, BUT !! bottled water is NOT a necessity nor is a $1,567,982.34 yacht !!

You just created a loop hole with the word "necessites" and why do you or the goverment get to say what is a necessity? We will then have paid lobbyist for that.

 

[Sunshine]

The rich actually do pay more taxes:

pitchforks. The story is more complicated than that.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.

The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all

The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes - Mar. 12, 2013

 

[LoneLaugher]

I would pay more in taxes with the Fair Tax.
But instead of supporting passing on massive debt to my children and society like most in this country support borrowing 45 cents of every dollar government spends I SEEK SOLUTIONS.
And Fair Tax is the solution.
And end the double taxation of taxing corporations.
That brings back 21 trillion dollars held in overseas banks tomorrow.
Either one is interested in economic growth or one is interested in blaming the rich.
"They do not pay their fair share" is what a 5 year old says.

Please read and comment on the content in the following two opinion pieces regarding the Fair Tax.

Thanks.


Tax Update Blog: FAIR Tax isn't just a bad tactic; it's a bad idea.

Tennesseans for Fair Taxation

 

[Derideo_Te]

Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.

Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?

 

[KissMy]

I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.

Before I retired I made over $100K and I paid enough income tax to support a family of 6 under than national poverty guidelines. I should have retired last year because given my pensions and annuities, having fewer work expenses, less taxes to pay including a 2% local tax and 4% state income tax, I can't really tell a difference in my disposable income not working.

That is because work is taxed to death in this country, that is why all the jobs left. Now that you are making money from entitlement pensions, you are not paying nearly as high of a tax rate or payroll taxes. Just imagine how it must be to be born rich & never have to pay those high rates & payroll taxes workers have to pay. Plus by not having to pay those high rates all investment. Capital & wealth would flow to you because you are a more efficient investment than those making $2 million a year or less due to being taxed less.

 

[Sunshine]

Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.

Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?

Where do you get these ideas? The rich pay most of the taxes.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7320117-post75.html

 

[Katzndogz]

It's never been about paying a fair share. That is a made up excuse. It's being allowed to keep a share that is considered "fair" by social engineers. If a person is taxed at 98% and allowed to keep only 2% of what they earned and that 2% is over a $500,000 a year, compared to someone making $30,000 a year the 2% still isn't fair.