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

[auditor0007]

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.

28% including capital gains and inheritance taxes. That being the highest tax bracket would kick in at $200,000 for a single person. Secondly, the home mortgage deduction would be phased out over the next 15 years. As for the rest of the rates, 15%, 22%, and the top rate of 28%. And last of all, increase the payroll tax cap to $200,000, but make it so that nobody ever pays over 28% between their share of the payroll tax and their federal income tax.

 

[auditor0007]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

Yea, just like the states do it. In just about every state the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes and the highest income earners pay the least. A tax system based on sales taxes is terribly regressive and a very bad idea.

 

[Gadawg73]

Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.

Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.

Here is something that may have escaped you. You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money. I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.

Define 'pay.'

"Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.

Could it be that their skill set is 100 times more in demand than someone else's skill set?
Something about supply and demand.
NO ONE forces anyone to PAY anyone 100 times what others make.

In one of my businesses I make $100+ a hour because there are few people that are as skilled as myself in that area and they are more happy to pay it.

SKILL SET
Folks go to college and major in Greek Literature and wonder why they can not find a job making $60K a year.
And nothing against folks that major in Greek Literature as that is their choice.

 

[Gadawg73]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

Yea, just like the states do it. In just about every state the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes and the highest income earners pay the least. A tax system based on sales taxes is terribly regressive and a very bad idea.

NO it isn't regressive if there is a rebate level.
In fact it brings in MORE revenue as it is a consumption tax and many wealthy people later in life have NO taxable income so this taxes their consumption.
Taxing income, how hard someone works, is a terrible idea.
The most unfair system around, especially for lower income people that work hard and then make more money. What happens to them when they make it out of the lower income through THEIR HARD WORK? The government takes MORE FROM THEM and gives it to "the unfortunate", the "poor" and others THE GOVERNMENT ALONE determines needs more than the person that EARNED IT.

 

[mudwhistle]

'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.



Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.

Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.

 

[zeke]

Here is something that may have escaped you. You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money. I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.

Define 'pay.'

"Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.

Could it be that their skill set is 100 times more in demand than someone else's skill set?
Something about supply and demand.
NO ONE forces anyone to PAY anyone 100 times what others make.
In one of my businesses I make $100+ a hour because there are few people that are as skilled as myself in that area and they are more happy to pay it.

SKILL SET
Folks go to college and major in Greek Literature and wonder why they can not find a job making $60K a year.
And nothing against folks that major in Greek Literature as that is their choice.

LMAO. Dude, you ever hear about Ivy League colleges? Boards of Directors? Insider trading? Political connections? Families of great wealth?

The above are partly the reasons that large corporations have senior executives that make obscene salaries and bonuses. Having nothing to do with hard work or job performance. Hell, todays executives can have a "golden parachute" (and most do) where they get paid millions for basically getting let go. Fired in other words.

Just remember; at the ultra weathy level, it's not what you know, it is WHO you know. And the amount of wealth you control.

And you never did name names for those ultra wealthy that are asking for their taxes to be increased. Why?

 

[ilia25]

Here is something that may have escaped you. You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money. I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.

Define 'pay.'

"Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.

Could it be that their skill set is 100 times more in demand than someone else's skill set?
Something about supply and demand.
NO ONE forces anyone to PAY anyone 100 times what others make.

Yes, free market system is not perfect and sometimes it creates undesirable outcomes. Too high income inequality is one of them, and it should be corrected with redistribution through taxes.

All developed nations do that, including the US. We just not doing enough of it -- in the past 30 we have dramatically slashed taxes on the rich while income inequality was growing.

 

[ilia25]

I

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.

28% including capital gains and inheritance taxes. That being the highest tax bracket would kick in at $200,000 for a single person. Secondly, the home mortgage deduction would be phased out over the next 15 years. As for the rest of the rates, 15%, 22%, and the top rate of 28%. And last of all, increase the payroll tax cap to $200,000, but make it so that nobody ever pays over 28% between their share of the payroll tax and their federal income tax.

That's a good proposal, but why stop at 28%? There is little evidence that much higher marginal rates -- up to 70% -- have noticeable impact on the economy. And the less inequality we end up with, the better.

 

[Gadawg73]

I

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.

28% including capital gains and inheritance taxes. That being the highest tax bracket would kick in at $200,000 for a single person. Secondly, the home mortgage deduction would be phased out over the next 15 years. As for the rest of the rates, 15%, 22%, and the top rate of 28%. And last of all, increase the payroll tax cap to $200,000, but make it so that nobody ever pays over 28% between their share of the payroll tax and their federal income tax.

That's a good proposal, but why stop at 28%? There is little evidence that much higher marginal rates -- up to 70% -- have noticeable impact on the economy. And the less inequality we end up with, the better.

Who is stopping you from donating 70% of your income to the government?

Who determines what is "equality"?

THE GOVERNMENT?

That is some scary shit there.

 

[ilia25]

What happens to them when they make it out of the lower income through THEIR HARD WORK?

Hard work does not justify 100s times the average salary. Nobody works 4000 hour weeks.

The government takes MORE FROM THEM and gives it to "the unfortunate", the "poor" and others THE GOVERNMENT ALONE determines needs more than the person that EARNED IT.

The government from the people, by the people. It is elected by the majority and acts in their interests.

As for "earned it" -- no, you didn't build that, not on your own. Millions people had to do the right thing so you could succeed. You owe it to them just as much as you owe it to yourself.

 

[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 !!

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.

YES !! as i said, "necessities" is a loaded word.., so i'll try to define it,

"necessities": food, medicine and material items necessary to sustain life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.



Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.

Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.

You really think that low/middle income Americans with families do not derive any benefit from a $1000 per child tax credit?

You really think that paying 10% on your first 20,000 of income, or whatever it is, isn't better than paying 20%?

 

[RKMBrown]

'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.



Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.

Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.

You really think that low/middle income Americans with families do not derive any benefit from a $1000 per child tax credit?

You really think that paying 10% on your first 20,000 of income, or whatever it is, isn't better than paying 20%?

40m+ on welfare... yeah not one democrat is benefiting from those checks.

 

[mudwhistle]

'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.



Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.

Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.

You really think that low/middle income Americans with families do not derive any benefit from a $1000 per child tax credit?

You really think that paying 10% on your first 20,000 of income, or whatever it is, isn't better than paying 20%?

40m+ on welfare... yeah not one democrat is benefiting from those checks.

The Dem base doesn't care if Obama increases the welfare state, they just like that he constantly talks about ******* the rich. Fact is he's just ******* his political opponents over and using government agencies to do it through lawsuits, harrassment, and fear.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well.. I don't think it is a specific number right now...

BUT....

It should be an equal rate across the board... none of this subjective BULLSHIT that the 'rich' can afford to pay more, etc... and all budget and ACTUAL spending should be limited to the intake of tax income from the previous year at a MAXIMUM. And any 'emergency' spending should be approved by a 2/3 majority in congress, and signed off by the executive, and taken out of the next year's spending

 

[tooAlive]

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.

Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.

I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.

I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're full of shit. Someone as stupid as you can't possibly EARN a salary that pays more than $25K, and no one under $50K pays an effective federal tax rate over %1 unless they're too stupid to file a return at all.

I'd be happy to pay %10 tax on my income, if everything else that I bought wasn't loaded up with fees and taxes that don't show up on my receipts. If "The Rich" and their businesses weren't saddled with having to have accountants and lawyers on full time salaries because of fascist pigs like you, everything I buy would cost a lot less. If corporate "profits" weren't taxed more than COMMUNIST CHINA we might not have to worry about the competition.

You bed wetters are useful idiots, and the reason this nation is in decline.

If you don't like what I said, then shove it up your ass and out your mouth!

I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends.

So **** you and anyone who looks like you!

You don't pay 31%....There is no 31% bracket.
Now, you expect all forms of income to be taxed at the same rate? That's ludicrous.
That money was taxed at the higher rate when it was earned. Are you implying that the federal government should get a second FULL bite at the apple just because someone decided to invest in a company through its stock offering? A company that without the investments of others that could not create the jobs that the investment capital provided?
And let's discuss all the people that have 401k's and those union workers who's pension funds are all invested in those very same firms?
Should the pensioner's allowance after he or she retires be taxed at the full rate as regular income? The 401k investor? The IRA saver?
Are you so pissed off at anyone who made some additional income for their future or to pay for a new home or a swimming pool, or to just live more comfortably, that you would rather see government tax the shit out of them and remove all incentive to save or invest?
IS that the kind of world in which you wish to live?
Damn the people! Give all the cash to the government, right genius?
Have you ever asked your parents( assuming they are still alive) or grandparents if they ever invested in GM or Coca Cola? If so, would you walk up to them and say, "I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends."?....
Are you are now boiling mad as you shoot back with " that's different. They worked hard for their money!!"...? How would that be any different? Go ahead and try to explain that one.
Now you can curse like a drunken sailor at me.
Meanwhile your premise of full double taxation goes nowhere.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

No matter. The top 10% of all earners pay 40% of the federal tax burden. The top 25% pay well over 70% of the federal tax burden.
The problem is not revenue. The problem is SPENDING...There is too much of it.
The fact that a measly $85 bln of a total continuing resolution( remember, there is no federal budget right now) of over $3 trillion caused such a ruckus. There is just far too much dependency on government.
The other fact ignored is there were NO CUTS in the sequester. Only reductions in increases. Which the libs call a "cut"...
No, you guys get plenty. Your side needs to figure out good stewardship of the people's money before you can ask for more.

I warned you in this post "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."

You have clearly demonstrated you are to retarded to understand subsidies or tax codes! You are clueless as to how the tax code made all the capital, investment & wealth flow to the rich because their lower effective tax rate & exemption from payroll tax generated greater return on investment than others could. You don't have the mental capacity to understand.

I never asked for more revenue, only less from the upper middle class in order to stop the $2 million & above income from paying lower rates than us who are subsidizing them.

There is no table, no truth to the contrary that the top earners pay the majority of the federal tax burden. That is the end of the story.
Your nonsense about subsidies and other lib talking point material is nothing but political rhetoric.
I believe you absolutely despise anyone with more than what makes you feel comfortable.
As you drive through a wealthy neighborhood you seethe with anger. You scream "who are those people to think they deserve to live in such luxury. **** them"..
Such a mindset is illogical.
What you refuse to acknowledge is the federal government already got its full bite at the apple when the money was earned.
And at the end of your rant, suppose for a moment the tax code was replaced with only the things YOU want. What then? Do you think it will change your situation one iota?

Now, as for your uncalled for insult..
Be advised, I don't give a rats ass about forum rules. I leave no stone unturned.
You come at me, I will bury you.
Now, do you want to have a discussion? Or do you want to lose a war of insults?
Your choice.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's start with pre-Reagan tax rates and see how it goes

Why?

 

[Billo_Really]

You don't pay 31%....There is no 31% bracket.
Now, you expect all forms of income to be taxed at the same rate? That's ludicrous.
That money was taxed at the higher rate when it was earned. Are you implying that the federal government should get a second FULL bite at the apple just because someone decided to invest in a company through its stock offering? A company that without the investments of others that could not create the jobs that the investment capital provided?
And let's discuss all the people that have 401k's and those union workers who's pension funds are all invested in those very same firms?
Should the pensioner's allowance after he or she retires be taxed at the full rate as regular income? The 401k investor? The IRA saver?
Are you so pissed off at anyone who made some additional income for their future or to pay for a new home or a swimming pool, or to just live more comfortably, that you would rather see government tax the shit out of them and remove all incentive to save or invest?
IS that the kind of world in which you wish to live?
Damn the people! Give all the cash to the government, right genius?
Have you ever asked your parents( assuming they are still alive) or grandparents if they ever invested in GM or Coca Cola? If so, would you walk up to them and say, "I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends."?....
Are you are now boiling mad as you shoot back with " that's different. They worked hard for their money!!"...? How would that be any different? Go ahead and try to explain that one.
Now you can curse like a drunken sailor at me.
Meanwhile your premise of full double taxation goes nowhere.

31% of my last paycheck was deducted from the gross.

Since I have no medical, it was all government related deductions.