How much is a fair share?

[kwc57]

The discussion is INCOME tax

Then the discussion is deliberately misleading. Setting the parameters artificially in that way distorts reality and is, quite simply, a lie.

Negged for being an idiot. You walked into a conversation that was already framed. If it isn't framed to your liking, tough shit....that doesn't make it misleading. It means you aren't intelligent enough to follow the conversation as framed. Don't like it, go start your own thread and frame it to your liking. Now piss off moron.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's over 200 posts in this thread and with exception of Flopper, there is still no straight answer from the left on what is the "fair share" that rich should pay.

Wtf, they won't even say if they agree with Obama.

 

[Listening]

It's over 200 posts in this thread and with exception of Flopper, there is still no straight answer from the left on what is the "fair share" that rich should pay.

Wtf, they won't even say if they agree with Obama.

Let's keep trying.

Bump.

 

[Intense]

It's over 200 posts in this thread and with exception of Flopper, there is still no straight answer from the left on what is the "fair share" that rich should pay.

Wtf, they won't even say if they agree with Obama.

Let's keep trying.

Bump.

I think they just want you to sign the check and leave everything else blank.

 

[Listening]

The 47% figure applies to income tax.

Then, as I said, it means absolutely squat.

Actually, the bottom 47% doesn't pay no taxes. That's the bottom 50%. The bottom 47% actually profit from 'paying' taxes.

Does anyone have a distribution of income for the lower 47% ?

We could look at the top portion of that group and ask:

Could they pay taxes (the answer is probably yes) ?

or

Should the guy making a million bucks cary this guys load instead (the guy in the top part of the 47% of those who don't) ?

Who decides ?

In my world, that 47% will be paying something. It may not be much, but it will be something. They use services and they will help pay for them.

The guy making a million bucks will too.

 

[jgarden]

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.

National unemployment has lingered above 8 percent for longer than 28 straight months. Congress, meanwhile, is a club that consists of 245 millionaires. Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075586-503544.html

How long will 50% of all Americans be content to be relegated to the "scrap heap," while the wealthy in positions of power "dither," refuse to address the problem - that's the real question!

 

[Intense]

Then, as I said, it means absolutely squat.

Actually, the bottom 47% doesn't pay no taxes. That's the bottom 50%. The bottom 47% actually profit from 'paying' taxes.

Does anyone have a distribution of income for the lower 47% ?

We could look at the top portion of that group and ask:

Could they pay taxes (the answer is probably yes) ?

or

Should the guy making a million bucks cary this guys load instead (the guy in the top part of the 47% of those who don't) ?

Who decides ?

In my world, that 47% will be paying something. It may not be much, but it will be something. They use services and they will help pay for them.

The guy making a million bucks will too.

I think the Usage Taxes Effect the Poor to a higher degree. Rightly or wrongly.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I don't know what a fair share is, but it's not zero. Neither the rich nor the poor should pay zero taxes and both do now.

There is not a single "rich" income earner that is paying zero taxes.

Anyone who is earning 400K or more is paying 35% less deductions...

ANd those deductions are available to ALL income earners.

And at 35% they are still seeing record profits.

Exactly WHERE is the incentive for large corporations to hire more workers, if they are expected to already pay even more in the way of taxes? Could this be the reason why the left can't understand why the unemployment rate and jobs continues to be an issue, and their hopes of the Federal Government "spending their way out of a recession" has failed?

 

[Dragon]

Negged for being an idiot. You walked into a conversation that was already framed. If it isn't framed to your liking, tough shit....that doesn't make it misleading.

The fact that it's not framed to my liking doesn't. The fact that it's framed so as to distort reality does.

It means you aren't intelligent enough to follow the conversation as framed.

It means I'm too intelligent to fall for your bullshit.

 

[Care4all]

There is not a single "rich" income earner that is paying zero taxes.

Anyone who is earning 400K or more is paying 35% less deductions...

ANd those deductions are available to ALL income earners.

And at 35% they are still seeing record profits.

Exactly WHERE is the incentive for large corporations to hire more workers, if they are expected to already pay even more in the way of taxes? Could this be the reason why the left can't understand why the unemployment rate and jobs continues to be an issue, and their hopes of the Federal Government "spending their way out of a recession" has failed?

if they hired more workers, they would pay less in taxes....workers are considered an expense, and the money to pay them is tax exempt.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Enough with the slogans.

Why don't you try to answer the question.

I did in previous posts. I would be okay with a flat % tax on personal income if other taxes on working people were dropped. Corporationn taxes are a diferent story.

Please tell me that you are smart enough to understand that any additional tax burden put on a corporation will be passed on to their customers in higher prices? Please?

You are making it far too complex, the left can't process that much information and expect to understand economics.

 

[The Rabbi]

And at 35% they are still seeing record profits.

Exactly WHERE is the incentive for large corporations to hire more workers, if they are expected to already pay even more in the way of taxes? Could this be the reason why the left can't understand why the unemployment rate and jobs continues to be an issue, and their hopes of the Federal Government "spending their way out of a recession" has failed?

if they hired more workers, they would pay less in taxes....workers are considered an expense, and the money to pay them is tax exempt.

Umm, on what planet is that true?
Workers cost money. There is hiring them, training them, etc. Also payroll taxes, health care insurance, etc.
The money to pay them is an operating expense, like the electric bill. But the company still has to put out money.

 

[Full-Auto]

It's over 200 posts in this thread and with exception of Flopper, there is still no straight answer from the left on what is the "fair share" that rich should pay.

Wtf, they won't even say if they agree with Obama.

Let's keep trying.

Bump.

I think they just want you to sign the check and leave everything else blank.

The model taxpayer...................

 

[The Rabbi]

I did in previous posts. I would be okay with a flat % tax on personal income if other taxes on working people were dropped. Corporationn taxes are a diferent story.

Please tell me that you are smart enough to understand that any additional tax burden put on a corporation will be passed on to their customers in higher prices? Please?

You are making it far too complex, the left can't process that much information and expect to understand economics.

They pass on the cost where they can. It isn't always possible to do that and the company will have to eat the cost. Or take it out on workers' salaries and benefits.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And at 35% they are still seeing record profits.

Exactly WHERE is the incentive for large corporations to hire more workers, if they are expected to already pay even more in the way of taxes? Could this be the reason why the left can't understand why the unemployment rate and jobs continues to be an issue, and their hopes of the Federal Government "spending their way out of a recession" has failed?

if they hired more workers, they would pay less in taxes....workers are considered an expense, and the money to pay them is tax exempt.

Add more regulations, Obamacare, throw in a union boss, and an increase in corporate taxes and any corporate expense is either (a) passed down to the consumer or (b) are cut by eliminating jobs and reducing employee benefits to remain competitive.

 

[Dragon]

One more time: A company hires the employees that it must, in order to put on the market the goods and/or services that it believes will sell. It does not hire people merely because it can.

For that reason, putting more money in the pockets of businesses by cutting taxes will not result in more hiring, and taking money out of businesses' pockets by raising taxes will not result in less hiring. On the other hand, more hiring will result in more hiring, because there will be more demand for goods and services. Anything that puts money in the pockets of customers -- not businesses -- will result in more hiring.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

One more time: A company hires the employees that it must, in order to put on the market the goods and/or services that it believes will sell. It does not hire people merely because it can.

For that reason, putting more money in the pockets of businesses by cutting taxes will not result in more hiring, and taking money out of businesses' pockets by raising taxes will not result in less hiring. On the other hand, more hiring will result in more hiring, because there will be more demand for goods and services. Anything that puts money in the pockets of customers -- not businesses -- will result in more hiring.

Raising taxes may not result in hiring, but a $50,000 union truck verses a $35,000 non-union truck can result in layoffs to try and remain competitive. How is it that adding more regulations to corporations and banks, has not produced any significant net gain in hiring more workers and allowing for more business loans? Why are the auto bailouts that we saw the Federal Government issue in this country all union run?

Bank of America layoffs largest of the year
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...-bank-of-america-layoffs-largest-of-the-year-

Worried Banks Sharply Reduce Business Loans
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/business/economy/28credit.html?pagewanted=all

Banks slashed small business lending by $43 billion
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/11/smallbusiness/small_business_lending_drop/index.htm

 

[Care4all]

Exactly WHERE is the incentive for large corporations to hire more workers, if they are expected to already pay even more in the way of taxes? Could this be the reason why the left can't understand why the unemployment rate and jobs continues to be an issue, and their hopes of the Federal Government "spending their way out of a recession" has failed?

if they hired more workers, they would pay less in taxes....workers are considered an expense, and the money to pay them is tax exempt.

Add more regulations, Obamacare, throw in a union boss, and an increase in corporate taxes and any corporate expense is either (a) passed down to the consumer or (b) expenses are cut by eliminating jobs and reducing employee benefits to remain competitive.

why say all that, when it is meaningless? why not just discuss the topic for the worth that it is?

there has not been an increase in corporate taxes....most corporations do not even pay federal corporate income taxes when it is all said and done....

and yes, consumers do end up paying a good majority of the corporate taxes in the prices of the product they buy from them.....

as it should be.

the people using the corporation's products should be the ones hit with the corporate tax and certainly not one of us, who do not buy their product....through raising my individual tax rate to make up for the lost revenues if corporations are not taxed....i have no problem with the consumer fronting most of what corporations pay in federal income taxes, it's like a back door consumption tax....but i am still okay with it.

corporations used to pay the majority of federal income taxes collected, many moons ago....but truly, it was passed around to all those people who used the corporation's products.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

if they hired more workers, they would pay less in taxes....workers are considered an expense, and the money to pay them is tax exempt.

Add more regulations, Obamacare, throw in a union boss, and an increase in corporate taxes and any corporate expense is either (a) passed down to the consumer or (b) expenses are cut by eliminating jobs and reducing employee benefits to remain competitive.

why say all that, when it is meaningless? why not just discuss the topic for the worth that it is?

there has not been an increase in corporate taxes....most corporations do not even pay federal corporate income taxes when it is all said and done....

and yes, consumers do end up paying a good majority of the corporate taxes in the prices of the product they buy from them.....

as it should be.

the people using the corporation's products should be the ones hit with the corporate tax and certainly not one of us, who do not buy their product....through raising my individual tax rate to make up for the lost revenues if corporations are not taxed....i have no problem with the consumer fronting most of what corporations pay in federal income taxes, it's like a back door consumption tax....but i am still okay with it.

corporations used to pay the majority of federal income taxes collected, many moons ago....but truly, it was passed around to all those people who used the corporation's products.

you both are reminding me of network for some reason

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcpWk2WKhEM&feature=related]It's the Individual that's finished. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually consumers always paid the tax. Originally the gov't was funded on tariffs, which meant consumers paid twice: once for imported goods and a second time for the extra domestic manufacturers charged because they lacked foreign competition. It sucked.