The Rich are paying their fair share

[LordBrownTrout]

Is anyone going to actually challenge the definition of fair?

Is anyone going to actually challenge the definition of fair?

How can anyone challenge it? It's completely subjective.

see my sig,, it is what it is.

Lewis had it dead on. The power to tax can lead a nation to ruins.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nobody denies we were idiots to allow the wealthy to pay so little in taxes

We were deceived to lead to a booming economy and millions of jobs. None of that happened....so why do we continue the historically low tax rates?

Because we (as in you and I and all us regular folks) don't have the political or economic horsepower to change the things that are.

That's a lie.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is anyone going to actually challenge the definition of fair?

How can anyone challenge it? It's completely subjective.

How is the definition subjective?

Fair is a subjective term. Ask twenty people individually what fair is and you'll have twenty answers.

 

[Mr Natural]

Nobody denies we were idiots to allow the wealthy to pay so little in taxes

We were deceived to lead to a booming economy and millions of jobs. None of that happened....so why do we continue the historically low tax rates?

Because we (as in you and I and all us regular folks) don't have the political or economic horsepower to change the things that are.

That's a lie.

Don't be naive.

The whole system is based on pay offs and bribes (aka campaign contributions).

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody denies we were idiots to allow the wealthy to pay so little in taxes

We were deceived to lead to a booming economy and millions of jobs. None of that happened....so why do we continue the historically low tax rates?

Because lobbyists pay our legislators to rig the game in their favor.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody denies we were idiots to allow the wealthy to pay so little in taxes

We were deceived to lead to a booming economy and millions of jobs. None of that happened....so why do we continue the historically low tax rates?

Because lobbyists pay our legislators to rig the game in their favor.

You want to know which tax cut was really laughable?

When Bush came into office he had a budget surplus. He justified his first tax cut as a way to give money back to the people who had paid it.

That budget surplus is LOOONG gone......but that tax cut isn't

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Some people want to ignore the definition of Fair:

.....While "conservatives" have conveniently ignored the concept of.....

....TEMPORARY!!!!!

"To the Washington budget establishment, the projected tax revenues that could be raised from the Clinton-era tax rates are as good as collected. Thus, any difference between those higher estimates and the amount that can be collected under the Bush rates is money that must be "borrowed" to finance the government. This is kind of like the young couple who bought a home for $300,000 and now wants to sell it for $500,000, but think they will "lose" money if the home sells for $450,000.

So when does a temporary tax cut effectively become permanent law? Perhaps it is time to stop the pretense that the Bush-era tax rates are temporary and need to be "paid for." One thing is for certain, American taxpayers are being ill-served by the arcane and Beltway-centric jargon of the current tax debate."

"Temporary" Bush Tax Rates​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Some people want to ignore the definition of Fair:

a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>

b (1): conforming with the established rules : allowed (2): consonant with merit or importance

If they pay according to the tax code, which are the established rules, they are paying their fair share.

If you want them to pay more, change the tax codes. Till then, if you have any integrity, you'd have to agree that by the very definition of fair, the wealth who pay their taxes are paying their fair share.

I think we should change the top tax rates back to what they were under that PINKO COMMIE EISENHOWER.

We did just fine, with the.....

....CLINTON Tax Rateshttp://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html

 

[Nic_Driver]

Some people want to ignore the definition of Fair:

a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>

b (1): conforming with the established rules : allowed (2): consonant with merit or importance

If they pay according to the tax code, which are the established rules, they are paying their fair share.

If you want them to pay more, change the tax codes. Till then, if you have any integrity, you'd have to agree that by the very definition of fair, the wealth who pay their taxes are paying their fair share.

“Legal share” doesn't equal “fair share”, the terms are not synonymous, and of course you know that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why does anyone want to give more money to a corrupt government that spends frivolously? Creates worthless depts, agencies?

I guess you haven't noticed.

Lil' Dumbya is GONE!!!!!

*

It's time to get-back to....

....paying-down our debt$!!!!

 

[Trajan]

Nobody denies we were idiots to allow the wealthy to pay so little in taxes

We were deceived to lead to a booming economy and millions of jobs. None of that happened....so why do we continue the historically low tax rates?

Because lobbyists pay our legislators to rig the game in their favor.

You want to know which tax cut was really laughable?

When Bush came into office he had a budget surplus. He justified his first tax cut as a way to give money back to the people who had paid it.

That budget surplus is LOOONG gone......but that tax cut isn't

why do you want to make poor people pay taxes?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Is anyone going to actually challenge the definition of fair?

How can anyone challenge it? It's completely subjective.

see my sig,, it is what it is.

Lewis had it dead on. The power to tax can lead a nation to ruins.

Yeah.....those Bush tax-cuts surely did balance-our-books.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because lobbyists pay our legislators to rig the game in their favor.

You want to know which tax cut was really laughable?

When Bush came into office he had a budget surplus. He justified his first tax cut as a way to give money back to the people who had paid it.

That budget surplus is LOOONG gone......but that tax cut isn't

why do you want to make poor people pay taxes?

What an amateurish-argument.

August 5, 1996

Taxes: The Highest in History?​

"Some columnists claim that tax receipts are now a bigger share of the economy than ever before, presumably the result of tax increases enacted in 1993. As a result, they say, federal taxes and especially federal income taxes should be cut. But the claim is false.

The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

 

[kiwiman127]

Nobody denies we were idiots to allow the wealthy to pay so little in taxes

We were deceived to lead to a booming economy and millions of jobs. None of that happened....so why do we continue the historically low tax rates?

Because they aren't historically low? They are rather high.

Yeah you're right, the tax rates on the wealthy were alot lower,,,,just before the Great Depression and up til Hoover left office, then again under Reagan until GHW Bush went back on his "read my lips" promise and raised taxes. But averaging everything out, they are still now lower than the 100 year average.
Here's a link that shows the historical tax rate for the top percentage.
Historical Top Tax Rate

 

[hortysir]

Why does anyone want to give more money to a corrupt government that spends frivolously? Creates worthless depts, agencies?

We could raise the Capital Gains Tax to 80% and the highest bracket to 90% and the idiots in DC would still spend more than they bring in and borrow even more from China.

Until we stop THAT behavior the tax rate is moot.

 

[Staidhup]

So lets deal with reality shall we. Corporations as a rule pay 35% in federal taxes, distribute between 30%-70% of the remaining earnings to the owners, investors, of the company, who in turn pay 15% in federal income tax on those earnings, with an additional state tax ranging from 0-11%. So at a minimum investors that choose to invest in jobs pay between 50% and 61% or more in taxes on their investments. So how much is fair? Don't get me started on inheritance taxes, which provides the federal and state governments the ability to tax savings, investments, once again to feed the needs of a government who spends money like a drunk sailor and couldn't balance a check book for the life of them. Now these same people want to tax earnings of corporations for their earnings generated off shore who already pay the country's they operate in taxes on their respective earnings. Until such time the government provides multi international companies the opportunity to repatriate dollars jobs will remain overseas. So what about those individuals that run Hedge funds, Venture capitol, and investment funds should they be taxed at the lower rate of 15% or as employees preforming a function. The answer is again rather simple, if they are employed by a company and the company is engaged in operating a investment, hedge, or venture business they should be taxed as normal employees. So Mr. Buffet and company should be taxed at the higher rate for that is their occupation, fair?. There is a distinction between the passive investor and professional investor that differentiates the two and fairness would dictate the loop hole should be closed. As for the Social Security earned income ceiling should it be removed, yes. So what is fair, soak the rich, business, and wage earners for the sake of maintaining a bloated federal and state bureaucracy and how much should the 46% have to pay to maintain the 53% that choose not to accept a job when it requires adjusting one's standard of living.

 

[kiwiman127]

So lets deal with reality shall we. Corporations as a rule pay 35% in federal taxes, distribute between 30%-70% of the remaining earnings to the owners, investors, of the company, who in turn pay 15% in federal income tax on those earnings, with an additional state tax ranging from 0-11%. So at a minimum investors that choose to invest in jobs pay between 50% and 61% or more in taxes on their investments. So how much is fair? Don't get me started on inheritance taxes, which provides the federal and state governments the ability to tax savings, investments, once again to feed the needs of a government who spends money like a drunk sailor and couldn't balance a check book for the life of them. Now these same people want to tax earnings of corporations for their earnings generated off shore who already pay the country's they operate in taxes on their respective earnings. Until such time the government provides multi international Tompanies the opportunity to repatriate dollars jobs will remain overseas. So what about those individuals that run Hedge funds, Venture capitol, and investment funds should they be taxed at the lower rate of 15% or as employees preforming a function. The answer is again rather simple, if they are employed by a company and the company is engaged in operating a investment, hedge, or venture business they should be taxed as normal employees. So Mr. Buffet and company should be taxed at the higher rate for that is their occupation, fair?. There is a distinction between the passive investor and professional investor that differentiates the two and fairness would dictate the loop hole should be closed. As for the Social Security earned income ceiling should it be removed, yes. So what is fair, soak the rich, business, and wage earners for the sake of maintaining a bloated federal and state bureaucracy and how much should the 46% have to pay to maintain the 53% that choose not to accept a job when it requires adjusting one's standard of living.

If a corporation is paying 35% in federal taxes, they seriously need new accountants. With all the loopholes at their disposal, it's highly doubtful many corporations are paying 35%.
Secondly, you don't separate C and S corporations, which are you referring to? The reason I ask is that C & S corporations have two separate tax liability laws.
Here, read this:
Two Thirds of US Corporations Don't Pay Federal Income Tax: True But Horribly Misleading
Two Thirds of US Corporations Don't Pay Federal Income Tax: True But Horribly Misleading - Forbes


Taxes are a necessary evil, but taxes pay for services, the defense of our country and the building and maintenance of our infrastructure.
Oh and by the way, the US is one of the lowes marginal tax rates in the world.

Countries With The Highest And Lowest Taxes
<snip>
The Lowest
Surprise! Despite endless American complaints about over-taxation, the U.S. has one of the world&#8217;s lowest marginal income tax rates, at 27%. Along with what, by comparison with the high rates cited above, seems a relatively low rate, the U.S. has the world&#8217;s biggest economy, with a GDP of over $1,400 billion. The next largest economy, China&#8217;s, is only one third as large.
<snip>
The Bottom Line
The cost of running a country, providing services, maintaining a military, supporting and repairing the infrastructure, and all the other essential functions of government, is immensely expensive. Taxation, along with selling government bonds, assessing fees and imposing tariffs, are the principal means by which governments raise money to meet these expenses. Therefore, taxes are inevitable, but if you&#8217;re living in the U.S., your share of the tax burden is among the world&#8217;s lowest.
Countries With The Highest And Lowest Taxes - Forbes

 

[rdean]

Some people want to ignore the definition of Fair:

a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>

b (1): conforming with the established rules : allowed (2): consonant with merit or importance

If they pay according to the tax code, which are the established rules, they are paying their fair share.

If you want them to pay more, change the tax codes. Till then, if you have any integrity, you'd have to agree that by the very definition of fair, the wealth who pay their taxes are paying their fair share.

They already paid to have the tax code changed. Now they pay to keep it from being changed again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Rich are paying their fair share

No one ever said they weren’t.

The problem is the working class is paying more than theirs.