How much is a fair share?

[Ame®icano]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The dimwits have no definition of "fair share"

It's just another bit of political theater meant to rile up the sheep for a few minutes.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We all pay the "shares" the govt directs us too. This is just a bullshit trumped up term.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'll help you. If the top bracket were 50 percent, they'd be screaming for more. So you see, the fair share is never enough. It's about keeping class warfare alive.

 

[konradv]

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.

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

 

[The Rabbi]

"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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

OK
High income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than lower income earners.
Sound fair to you?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"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.

Our current inept tax system discriminates and segregates.

 

[eflatminor]

Personally, I think it's immoral to tax a man's labor and if the federal government lived within the confines of the Constitution, we would not need an income tax. That said, if you're going to tax labor, a progressive tax is anything but fair. I don't buy the "rich got the most from society" bullshit argument. A low flat tax applied to all is the only fair income tax.

 

[konradv]

"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.

Then why the refusal by the Republicans to fix the tax code? Those who have been "rewarded" need to pay.

 

[konradv]

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.

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

OK
High income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than lower income earners.
Sound fair to you?

That's not what Buffet says. You're listening to propaganda.

 

[konradv]

Personally, I think it's immoral to tax a man's labor and if the federal government lived within the confines of the Constitution, we would not need an income tax. That said, if you're going to tax labor, a progressive tax is anything but fair. I don't buy the "rich got the most from society" bullshit argument. A low flat tax applied to all is the only fair income tax.

The trouble is that that would lead to raising the rates of some of the richest people, a step the Republicans have pledged to oppose. How can things be fixed, if intransigence is covered up by cynical cries of "class warfare"?

 

[eflatminor]

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

OK
High income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than lower income earners.
Sound fair to you?

That's not what Buffet says. You're listening to propaganda.

Buffet is full of shit on this one, as it the President. This morning's AP article points that fact out: FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - AP Washington Heads - MyNorthwest.com

Buffet makes his money from capital gains (he only pays himself $100k per year). Capital gains are NOT part of the president's plan to raise taxes. Hmmmm...

 

[Flopper]

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.

 

[eflatminor]

Personally, I think it's immoral to tax a man's labor and if the federal government lived within the confines of the Constitution, we would not need an income tax. That said, if you're going to tax labor, a progressive tax is anything but fair. I don't buy the "rich got the most from society" bullshit argument. A low flat tax applied to all is the only fair income tax.

The trouble is that that would lead to raising the rates of some of the richest people, a step the Republicans have pledged to oppose. How can things be fixed, if intransigence is covered up by cynical cries of "class warfare"?

Well that would depend entirely on the rate of the flat tax, wouldn't it?

The only politicians to oppose a flat tax are those that engage in crony fascism by giving tax breaks and favors to those companies and industries that THEY want to see grow. That kind of meddling comes from central planners in both parties.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

OK
High income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than lower income earners.
Sound fair to you?

That's not what Buffet says. You're listening to propaganda.

You believe Warren Buffet and you accuse me of listening to propaganda?
Review & Outlook: The Buffett Alternative Tax - WSJ.com

There's one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false, as the nearby table shows. In 2008, the last year for which such data are available, the IRS reports that those who made more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average income tax rate of 23.3%.

That's slightly lower than the 24.1% rate paid by those making between $500,000 and $1 million, probably because the richest are like Mr. Buffett and earn more from capital gains and dividends. The rate for a relative handful of the rich—400 people—fell to 18%, the modern equivalent of Barr's Gang of 21. But nearly all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.

more at the source.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

Here are the IRS tax brackets for 2011. As much I can see, top tax bracket is much higher then bottom one. Red-herring?

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Please point to a case in which a person making enough income in a given year to be considered rich pays no income tax.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

First off, you confuse "rich" with "high income earner." Buffet could retire and not earn a single penny in salary, interest or dividends and he would still be rich.
Second, no high income earner pays zero in taxes.

So other than being completely wrong you're post is right on.

 

[Jarhead]

Fair share means "what % of income", NOT "what % of total taxes". You're offering us a red-herring. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

OK
High income earners pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than lower income earners.
Sound fair to you?

That's not what Buffet says. You're listening to propaganda.

You have it mixed up.
Buffet is the oine spewing propoganda.

He compared his capital gains tax to the income tax of his secretary.

That was disingenuous...and sadly, Obama is using it as he campaigns. Does Obama not know Buffet was comparing apples to oranges? Or does he know he is but believes the American people are too naive to realize it?

What was NOT mentioned by Buffet...or Obama for that matter.....

The money Buffet invested was already taxed at 35%...and now as he makes money off of that money via investments, he is being taxed another 15% as well.

And you refer to the OTHER stuff as propoganda?