How much is a fair share?

[kwc57]

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.

This is a lie. Either you are lying, or you are passing on a lie told to you by another.

Sadly, you are misinformed.

 

[Ame®icano]

As a starting point, I say we put in a slightly progressive tax starting at 1% at the poverty line and graduating up to 20% for the people making one million or more. No deductions, no exemptions, no nothing.

Then we set the corporate tax rate and the capitalgains/dividend tax rate at 10%, flat rate with no deductions and no exemptions, including Warren Buffett's annual 1 billion donation to the Gates Foundation. You can donate as much of your money to whoever you want to, but it ain't tax deductible.

Then we institute a floating national sales tax, starting at say 5%. Only food gets exempted, every other purchase gets taxed. The rate would change every year depending on the previous year's balance. If we had a federal surplus, then we pay down the debt. If we had a deficit, we raise the rate by a % point until we get back to even or a surplus.

That's my idea of fair share. Everybody has some skin in the game, and nobody gets more money back than they put in.

Even though I can't stand progressive way of thinking, I could agree to something like this as long as everyone pays in and there are no deductions/loopholes/favoritism...

Btw, go Lions!

 

[The Rabbi]

Someone making only $10,000 a year that had to give up $1,000 would almost surely have to give up necessities. That's not going to be the case with someone making 10 million. Sure they might have to sell their yacht, but they aren't going to have sleep in cold apartment this winter and give up taking their kid to demist.

NEither will the person making $10k. First off, there aren't such people who are heads of households. Second, people on the lowest income scale qualify for gov't benefits so their income is actually understated.
In any case, since "burden" is a subjective judgment it cannot be used to qualify what is fair.
Everyone pays the same rate sounds about as fair as we're going to get.

I know.of a few people who make just 10k a year and are the head of the household.
Naturally you would once again prove how clueless you are.

Bullshit. You're lying. Again.

 

[Dragon]

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.

 

[Mr Natural]

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

 

[Big Fitz]

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

It includes those who file their taxes.

So maybe not Timmy Geithner.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

We are talking about federal income taxes. That's in fact what Obama is talking about, raising federal income taxes on rich so they would pay their fair share. Btw, do you agree with him?

 

[Flopper]

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.

Any candidate who is talking about closing the loopholes is talking about raising taxes. Depending on who wins will define what loopholes will be closed and who is going to pay more.

Do you support that kind of rhetoric? Is his statement that rich are not paying their fair share correct?

Btw, what is the poor's fair share?

IMHO, fair tax rates were the taxes of 90's. In theory the highest tax bracket should be set to the highest level that will not impede economic growth. Tax rates in 90's were certainly no impediment to a growing economy.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

We are talking about federal income taxes. That's in fact what Obama is talking about, raising federal income taxes on rich so they would pay their fair share. Btw, do you agree with him?

They dont want to hear it. TRried to explain that to them.

But yes...Obama has been talking about raising FEDERAL INCOME TAX on the rich....and the complaint is that 47% of the people dont pay Federal income tax..

And the response is "yeah, well, they pay other federal taxes.

WELL SO DO THE RICH.


COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Any candidate who is talking about closing the loopholes is talking about raising taxes. Depending on who wins will define what loopholes will be closed and who is going to pay more.

Do you support that kind of rhetoric? Is his statement that rich are not paying their fair share correct?

Btw, what is the poor's fair share?

IMHO, fair tax rates were the taxes of 90's. In theory the highest tax bracket should be set to the highest level that will not impede economic growth. Tax rates in 90's were certainly no impediment to a growing economy.

How do you know?

If you recall, much of that growth was due to a false dot com industry that required very little capital.....and it ultimately imploded.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Any candidate who is talking about closing the loopholes is talking about raising taxes. Depending on who wins will define what loopholes will be closed and who is going to pay more.

Do you support that kind of rhetoric? Is his statement that rich are not paying their fair share correct?

Btw, what is the poor's fair share?

IMHO, fair tax rates were the taxes of 90's. In theory the highest tax bracket should be set to the highest level that will not impede economic growth. Tax rates in 90's were certainly no impediment to a growing economy.

Well, back in 90's there was so much money around due to the dotcom industry that, even if tax was at the double rate nobody would complain. Also, government was much smaller and spending less and we still managed to increase our national debt regardless of the "budget surplus".

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

We are talking about federal income taxes. That's in fact what Obama is talking about, raising federal income taxes on rich so they would pay their fair share. Btw, do you agree with him?

They dont want to hear it. TRried to explain that to them.

But yes...Obama has been talking about raising FEDERAL INCOME TAX on the rich....and the complaint is that 47% of the people dont pay Federal income tax..

And the response is "yeah, well, they pay other federal taxes.

WELL SO DO THE RICH.


COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES

Apples to apples?

That's easy, let's try it: Buffett pays less tax then his secretary, right?


.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

 

[bripat9643]

IMHO, fair tax rates were the taxes of 90's. In theory the highest tax bracket should be set to the highest level that will not impede economic growth. Tax rates in 90's were certainly no impediment to a growing economy.

What "theory" says that, the gospel of organized plunder and mob rule?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That would suggest a flat tax, an idea you've already dismissed.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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?

 

[Dragon]

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.