Zone1 Tax the Rich! Make them Pay their Fair Share!

[there4eyeM]

I'm not convinced that a flat percentage rate is fair.

In fact, I'm arguing that it wouldn't be.

You are absolutely correct. Regressive taxes are, by definition, unfair.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good post, but needs more editing, particularly here:

You should stick with the program first:

#3 Example: A person makes $10,000. Their (flat) tax of $21K puts them $11,000 in the hole.

#4 Example: A person makes $25,000. Their (flat) tax of $21K leaves them with only $4,000 to live on.

Thanks, I was shutting down for the night and was trying to bang it out before heading off to bed.

Maybe I rushed it.

WW

 

[leftwinger]

How about this answer>>>>>>

The top income earners should in NO WAY pay LESS of an ETR than a low earner.

Do you agree with this?

On income tax they don't. The highest rate is on the highest income.

 

[WorldWatcher]

On income tax they don't. The highest rate is on the highest income.

Published rate or effective rate? There is a difference.

And note, I'm not trying to push for any bumper sticker solution to the preceived problem. I'm really trying to get people (which may not include you) to understand the scope of the issue. It shouldn't be just about "federal income tax", the discussion needs to be about "total tax burden as a function of income".

Who has the higher tax burden as a percentage of income when total tax is a factor including:

• Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
• Effective State Income Tax rates
• Property Tax (Land)
• Property Tax (Non-land)
• Sales Tax
• Embedded Taxes (local, state, federal)

WW

 

[leftwinger]

Published rate or effective rate? There is a difference.

And note, I'm not trying to push for any bumper sticker solution to the preceived problem. I'm really trying to get people (which may not include you) to understand the scope of the issue. It shouldn't be just about "federal income tax", the discussion needs to be about "total tax burden as a function of income".

Who has the higher tax burden as a percentage of income when total tax is a factor including:

• Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
• Effective State Income Tax rates
• Property Tax (Land)
• Property Tax (Non-land)
• Sales Tax
• Embedded Taxes (local, state, federal)

WW

Huh? Depends on the income level?

$100K AGI pays about $20K
$1M AGI pays about $390K

Houses: 1.125% in CA. Same kind of math only flat rate?

The rich pay a lot more as they probably have high income (if working for pre-tax dollars) and expensive houses.

This Buffet fairytale is probably due to Capital gains 12%? But affects "After Tax" dollars.

 

[Cellblock2429]

A couple of years ago, at a family function (graduation party), the subject of taxation came up. It wasn't me that brought it up, but I did make the mistake of kicking the hornets' nest.

The subject was mostly about the economy and Trump (again, it wasn't me), and one of my in-laws said something about "tax cuts for the rich," or "the rich not paying their fair share."

I wanted a clear answer and explanation for how to know or calculate what "their fair share" should be. That's all.

You would have thought I threatened them with a gun or something.

Needless to say, I never got an answer.

In my view, each and every citizens "tax burden" should initially be the same dollar amount. Thereafter, there should be taxes based on usage. For example, if you have a trucking company with 200 trucks running up and down the road every day.

My reasoning goes like this.

If Trump, Musk, or any other Billionaire were standing in line to buy a gallon of milk at the grocery store, should their cost for their gallon of milk be exponentially higher than what I pay, just because they have and make more money than I do?

In my view, fairness means we all pay the same.

Change My Mind.

/----/ Neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone worth more than 10 million buys their own milk and gas. They have people who do that. So the cashier will have a list of billionaires' employees to verify each customer? GEEEZE.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Huh? Depends on the income level?

$100K AGI pays about $20K
$1M AGI pays about $390K

Houses: 1.125% in CA. Same kind of math onlyf flat rate?

AGI is an income tax term for "Adjusted Gross Income".

That is the income tax model, which isn't what I'm trying to get people to think about. It's burden as a function of ALL taxes by income level.

Oh, and just to be clear, that $1M AGI isn't paying 39%, even with no other deductions/adjustments the rate would be 31% since they don't pay the highest riate on all AGI income. It's a progressive system where the lower amounts are applied first in a ladder effect. So got FIT (from the web):

10% on the first $11,600: $1,160
12% on income from $11,601 to $47,150: $4,266
22% on income from $47,151 to $100,525: $11,742.50
24% on income from $100,526 to $191,950: $21,942
32% on income from $191,951 to $243,725: $16,568
35% on income from $243,726 to $609,350: $127,963.75
37% on income over $609,350: $132,270.50

WW

 

[leftwinger]

AGI is an income tax term for "Adjusted Gross Income".

That is the income tax model, which isn't what I'm trying to get people to think about. It's burden as a function of ALL taxes by income level.

Oh, and just to be clear, that $1M AGI isn't paying 39%, even with no other deductions/adjustments the rate would be 31% since they don't pay the highest riate on all AGI income. It's a progressive system where the lower amounts are applied first in a ladder effect. So got FIT (from the web):

10% on the first $11,600: $1,160
12% on income from $11,601 to $47,150: $4,266
22% on income from $47,151 to $100,525: $11,742.50
24% on income from $100,526 to $191,950: $21,942
32% on income from $191,951 to $243,725: $16,568
35% on income from $243,726 to $609,350: $127,963.75
37% on income over $609,350: $132,270.50

WW

Understood. OK make it $10M. More money is in top bracket. The "rate" will ratchet up.

$100K guy doesn't pay 22% either.

These are the rates set. High income pays a higher rate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Understood. OK make it $10M. More money is in top bracket. The "rate" will ratchet up.

$100K guy doesn't pay 22% either.

These are the rates set. High income pays a higher rate.

True. They also pay more based on dollars.

If you look at only FIT.

Now do total tax burden as a percentage of gross income while factoring in the other variables listed in Post 164.

WW

 

[leftwinger]

If you look at only FIT.

Now do total tax burden as a percentage of gross income while factoring in the other variables listed in Post 164.

WW

Very hard. It depends. You can't mix other taxes to income tax thread on a small phone TouchType.

One at a time. A $10M home in CA pays $110K property tax but a $1M home pays $10K.

So as a percentage of income?
At $100K income property tax is 10%
$10M income $10M home is only 1% (is that one complaint by liberal board stain)? Again, property tax is using after income tax dollars.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Very hard. It depends. You can't mix other taxes to income tax thread on a small phone TouchType.

One at a time. A $10M home in CA pays $110K property tax but a $1M home pays $10K.

So as a percentage of income?
$100K is 10%
$10M is only q% (is that one complaint by liberal board stain)?

Agree. It’s hard.

But when someone ( not saying you ) focuses on only one aspect of a large issue they miss/ignore the scope of the fundamental question.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gotta bow out now for awhile and get ready for the day.

WW

 

[alang1216]

This makes me wonder if you (or others) even know what it means to "tax" someone or something.

I know the difference between taxing individuals and taxing commercial entities.

To "tax" someone or something is to place a burden, strain, or heavy demand on it. It's discouraging to anything (anyone) who is burdened with that tax.

So "taxing the rich" not only forces the rich to raise their prices for their goods and services (to cover their tax burden), which results in an effective tax on the consumers of those goods and services. . . The taxes also discourage businesses and growth in the process.

The rich add very few jobs and little economic help to our economy so taxing them more would have little effect on the overall economy. Taxing corporations more, on the other hand, could have dramatic impacts on the nations economy.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I would like for you (or anyone else) to explain why "fairness" is defined as a "percentage of someone's income" (your view) - rather than a fixed amount (my view).

I suppose fairness has its limitations and does fairness contradict itself? For example, is it fair for someone to have the skill level to perform heart surgery compared to someone else? So is it fair to pay them more? Is it fair a heart surgeon is rich? Is it fair to take more off them in the form of a direct tax because they have/earn more money, penalise them for their skills? When folk argue over this topic, they omit the big picture and blurt a hot air statement, "The rich should be taxed more". That's when they come unstuck when asked, "Is that fair because......., which taxes are they not paying, and how on what would you tax them 'more'?"

 

[Stryder50]

Why would anybody enter an agreement like that without at least partial control of the business. Are you advocating socialism where the means of the production, distribution and exchange are owned or regulated by the workers?

Totally clueless I see ....

(Almost*) No one goes into wanting to lose money. They seek growth and profits for themselves(owners/managers) and the investors.

One might control the business, but you don't control the markets.
If not enough customers buy your goods &/or services, you get to where costs aren't met and debt grows. Breaking even is also no growth over time. Profits show a business is running efficiently and gauging it's market correctly.

* The exception is the case of seeking to launder money.

 

[Stryder50]

Labor made the capital.... It brought capital in to existence. We traded labor in the beginning, then bartered. No capital existed.

Capital includes investment money along with tools and facility for labor to use.
No capital and labor isn't able to do much other then scratch earth with a stick to peck out a living.

 

[citygator]

A couple of years ago, at a family function (graduation party), the subject of taxation came up. It wasn't me that brought it up, but I did make the mistake of kicking the hornets' nest.

The subject was mostly about the economy and Trump (again, it wasn't me), and one of my in-laws said something about "tax cuts for the rich," or "the rich not paying their fair share."

I wanted a clear answer and explanation for how to know or calculate what "their fair share" should be. That's all.

You would have thought I threatened them with a gun or something.

Needless to say, I never got an answer.

In my view, each and every citizens "tax burden" should initially be the same dollar amount. Thereafter, there should be taxes based on usage. For example, if you have a trucking company with 200 trucks running up and down the road every day.

My reasoning goes like this.

If Trump, Musk, or any other Billionaire were standing in line to buy a gallon of milk at the grocery store, should their cost for their gallon of milk be exponentially higher than what I pay, just because they have and make more money than I do?

In my view, fairness means we all pay the same.

Change My Mind.

Sweet. I paid $368,395 in Federal taxes last year. You'd need to double the taxes of 26 average Americans from $13,680 to $27,000 to cover giving me a break on paying less. Or mayb 50 people can pay 50% more from $13,680 to $20,000? What's your plan here?

 

[DGS49]

In order for any income tax system to be "fair," it would have to have an absolute maximum tax, stated in dollars, above which nobody should be required to pay. Call it a million dollars; I don't care. But a max tax is essential for fairness.

Without this you are blatantly punishing success.

Parenthetically, Elon Musk paid eleven billion dollars in FIT for tax year 2021. He should not have to pay another dollar for at least three generations.

Fair?

 

[Chuz Life]

/----/ Neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone worth more than 10 million buys their own milk and gas. They have people who do that. So the cashier will have a list of billionaires' employees to verify each customer? GEEEZE.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy noted.

 

[dblack]

Why "purely playing devil's advocate"? In general, don't people with higher incomes benefit more from government? Is that not an empirical fact?

Because basing tax rates on that "logic" is pure presumption. We don't know, in any particular case, how much a person "benefits" from government. Maybe the state is constantly getting in their way. Should we track that and give them refunds based on their inconvenience?

We've turned taxation into a shell game. A game the wealthy and influential will always win.