Fair Share

[thevofl]

Guys,

I have to ask a question, because I really want to know the answer to it. I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I really want to know your ideas and thoughts.

I have heard a number of people say they want the rich to pay their fair share, but I have no clue to what that means. From context, I get they are saying they want the rich to pay more without providing a firm number--essentially raising the bar without telling the person how high it will go. No details are mentioned with it.

What does "fair share" mean to you? Is there a number / percentage you have in mind? Or is it a conceptual amount?

Thank you in advance.

 

[BostonPirate]

Guys,

I have to ask a question, because I really want to know the answer to it. I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I really want to know your ideas and thoughts.

I have heard a number of people say they want the rich to pay their fair share, but I have no clue to what that means. From context, I get they are saying they want the rich to pay more without providing a firm number--essentially raising the bar without telling the person how high it will go. No details are mentioned with it.

What does "fair share" mean to you? Is there a number / percentage you have in mind? Or is it a conceptual amount?

Thank you in advance.

I am in th tax bracket that would get an increase under the plan that will be part of the 2012 budget.

I can lose much more out of my income, still meet all my obligations, save a substantial amount, and go on a few trips to europe.

The poor and middle class cannot pay their mortgages right now and that is causing the entire system to collapse.

I want the system to NOT collapse because I want the money that it brings me and I want the enrichment of life that I have.

I am willing to go up to fifty percent to make sure that I am NOT going to lose my ability to do business in a sound economy.

If I personally pay MORE my businesses will do less because people are going to buy products from the companies I own stock in, and that will give me more cash.

Only a FEW wealthy people want these tax cuts that the republicans are insisting upon.

Its like the pentagon. They sent a report to congress saying they didnt need all the money they have been receiving, and yet they were forced to take the increase the republicans demanded.

The wealthy gladly paid 90 percent of their income during the great depression. Rich people aren't by nature greedy.

But Some are and those that are? they pay lobbyists to make sure they get their way.

What would do the BEST is to get rid of all the loopholes, and lower the rates across the board. The gov't would get a dependable ammount of cash, and I would know exactly how much I owe, without having a quarterly nightmare with the IRS.

 

[chance1]

Hmmm

I like to keep the money I EARN - as I EARN it

I know that right now I am considered "rich" by Pres. Obama's standards and had he not renewed the "Bush Tax Cuts" I would've been taxed more - now I know that it would only be on the incremental amount over but .........

I know that the cost of living is batshit - just paid $4.39 for a gallon of gas - crazy

I know that when I go to the grocery store, a bag of groceries is $50 give or take

I know that going out to dinner costs an arm and a leg

so what i'm saying is just regular stuff costs a lot - sorta like we're being taxed (forget the 8+ % sales tax) is already a lot

feel like my gross and my net are out of whack now

90% taxes? and they gladly paid? i doubt it

frankly i don't think the govt. knows what to do with tax revenues - they're not efficient - don't trust them to invest my money in the right things

so i think the current tax rates are too damn high - and actually constrict my consumption

just saying

 

[BostonPirate]

the tax rates havent been this low since 1939. There is no amount of republican BS that can be manufactured that can hide the fact that we need to take in more revenue.

The shelters, giveaways and loopholes all need to be erased.

All of them.

THen we can look at a fair tax ammount. Chance, I have a feeling you are in the high bracket that gets the squeeze. You are too high to get a break and too low to have substantial shelters.

so you get screwed.

I think the new higher tax rate should go to those doing at least 500k annually, if not one mill.

 

[chance1]

the tax rates havent been this low since 1939. There is no amount of republican BS that can be manufactured that can hide the fact that we need to take in more revenue.

The shelters, giveaways and loopholes all need to be erased.

All of them.

THen we can look at a fair tax ammount. Chance, I have a feeling you are in the high bracket that gets the squeeze. You are too high to get a break and too low to have substantial shelters.

so you get screwed.

I think the new higher tax rate should go to those doing at least 500k annually, if not one mill.

sorta makes sense

i think ur feeling is spot on re: my financial situation

i get nickel and dimed to death

could use me a "substantial shelter"

open to ideas

 

[Jack Springer]

Liberals will always want more.

50% will not be enough, 60% will not be enough, 90% will not be enough.

They want more.

 

[BostonPirate]

Liberals will always want more.

50% will not be enough, 60% will not be enough, 90% will not be enough.

They want more.

That is not an answer. The truth is the gov't needs more revenue. The budget was ballanced in the 90s bu raising the taxes to 40 percent on the top bracket and cutting the rest in spending.

thats what we have PROVEN can be done.

if you can't answer that without asserting that the poor are greedy, which is personally offensive, then why participate here?

 

[landers]

The US Government needs to cut spending, but it also needs more money, so taxes loopholes have to be closed and the system simplified, and then, if necessary, taxes have to go up. Now I will say that taxes should go up on the richest, like the Boston Pirate says and that's because they can afford it better. If someone makes $500k and pays 50% taxes, then they would still make 5x more than someone who makes $50k and didn't pay taxes.

Oh and despite what Jack Springer says, the Liberals in Canada, after balancing the budget, cut taxes by the most of any party, ever.

 

[moniker]

Beyond a certain level of taxation revenues actually decrease because of evasion and people and businesses actually relocating to other jurisdictions. So, just below that level is "fair" in that it maximizes public good.

 

[BostonPirate]

Beyond a certain level of taxation revenues actually decrease because of evasion and people and businesses actually relocating to other jurisdictions. So, just below that level is "fair" in that it maximizes public good.

right

get rid of deductions, most if not all of them, and then make a lower base tax.

Its really frustrates me that people are not understanding the difference between a tax rate and a tax burden.

the tax rate is the beginning fo the discussion when you start paying taxes... when you file for a return, your tax burden is determined. Most poor pay little to none. The rich have a negative tax burden, meaning, they get refunds more than everyone else... Koch brothers sued the IRS in 2005 for shorting them 20 million on their refund check.

So theres a really big difference between a tax burden and a tax rate. Republicans hide the truth behind this and the democrats are too inept to communicate that clearly and simply enough for the average voter to understand.

the truth is the middle class pays for most of the workings of the gov't, while the rich get refunds galore.

It is immoral and it needs to stop. The debt commission was bipartisan.

it clearly stated that increasing revenue through the IRS AND cuts to entitlements would be the only way to balance the budget before one of the three entitlement programs went bust... that would be medicare and its estimated that it has about nine years left.

Tax cuts that amount in the trillions for the rich that already have a negative tax burden while killing medicare outright is immoral and its what the republicans passed yesterday.

It was kabooki theatre. they knew the senate would refuse to take up the bill and they knew the president would never sign it. yet they wasted thousands of dollars and priceless hours on something that would never be accepted by the other branches of the Gov't

Its time the house of reps realized they are only one of three parts of Gov't and they need to write legislation that can get through the senate, then get the presidents signature. Until then, we ought to send the nationat republican party the bill for operating costs of the house of reps.

 

[thevofl]

right

get rid of deductions, most if not all of them, and then make a lower base tax.

Its really frustrates me that people are not understanding the difference between a tax rate and a tax burden.

the tax rate is the beginning fo the discussion when you start paying taxes... when you file for a return, your tax burden is determined. Most poor pay little to none. The rich have a negative tax burden, meaning, they get refunds more than everyone else... Koch brothers sued the IRS in 2005 for shorting them 20 million on their refund check.

So theres a really big difference between a tax burden and a tax rate. Republicans hide the truth behind this and the democrats are too inept to communicate that clearly and simply enough for the average voter to understand.

the truth is the middle class pays for most of the workings of the gov't, while the rich get refunds galore.

It is immoral and it needs to stop. The debt commission was bipartisan.

it clearly stated that increasing revenue through the IRS AND cuts to entitlements would be the only way to balance the budget before one of the three entitlement programs went bust... that would be medicare and its estimated that it has about nine years left.

Tax cuts that amount in the trillions for the rich that already have a negative tax burden while killing medicare outright is immoral and its what the republicans passed yesterday.

It was kabooki theatre. they knew the senate would refuse to take up the bill and they knew the president would never sign it. yet they wasted thousands of dollars and priceless hours on something that would never be accepted by the other branches of the Gov't

Its time the house of reps realized they are only one of three parts of Gov't and they need to write legislation that can get through the senate, then get the presidents signature. Until then, we ought to send the nationat republican party the bill for operating costs of the house of reps.

BP,

For the most part we agree.

Now, what our suggestions are maybe where we differ. My suggestion is that if there was a flat tax where everyone paid the same percentage say 20% on the money earned passed a a certain amount based on the reported poverty level, say for the sake of argument 50% over the level. No deductions for anything apart from the number of people in the household (in order to determine the poverty level threshold). The two rates of 20% income and 50% over the poverty level could vary. But even the 50% over adjusts as the poverty level adjusts. The 15% would be really the only rate that is negotiated. Everyone would pay the exact same scale.

For example, for a family of 4, the poverty level is 22,350. They would be taxed on all income passed $33,525.

If the family earns $40,000, they would be taxed on $6,475. They would pay 20% on the $6,475 or $1,295 for a 3.2% burden.


Other examples include:

$30,000 would be taxed on $0 for a tax burden of 0.0%
$60,000 would be taxed on $5,295 for a tax burden of $8.8%
$100,000 would be taxed on $13,295 for a tax burden of $13.3%
$150,000 would be taxed on $23,295 for a tax burden of $15.5%
$300,000 would be taxed on $93,295 for a tax burden of $17.8%
$1,000,000 would be taxed on $193,295 for a tax burden of $19.3%

Everyone would know exactly what rate they have to pay going into the year. When the 20% rate is up for debate, it would be the only number up for debate. It would restrict the hands of the politicians. It won't eliminate the politics, but it will minimize it.

 

[BostonPirate]

BP,

For the most part we agree.

Now, what our suggestions are maybe where we differ. My suggestion is that if there was a flat tax where everyone paid the same percentage say 20% on the money earned passed a a certain amount based on the reported poverty level, say for the sake of argument 50% over the level. No deductions for anything apart from the number of people in the household (in order to determine the poverty level threshold). The two rates of 20% income and 50% over the poverty level could vary. But even the 50% over adjusts as the poverty level adjusts. The 15% would be really the only rate that is negotiated. Everyone would pay the exact same scale.

For example, for a family of 4, the poverty level is 22,350. They would be taxed on all income passed $33,525.

If the family earns $40,000, they would be taxed on $6,475. They would pay 20% on the $6,475 or $1,295 for a 3.2% burden.


Other examples include:

$30,000 would be taxed on $0 for a tax burden of 0.0%
$60,000 would be taxed on $5,295 for a tax burden of $8.8%
$100,000 would be taxed on $13,295 for a tax burden of $13.3%
$150,000 would be taxed on $23,295 for a tax burden of $15.5%
$300,000 would be taxed on $93,295 for a tax burden of $17.8%
$1,000,000 would be taxed on $193,295 for a tax burden of $19.3%

Everyone would know exactly what rate they have to pay going into the year. When the 20% rate is up for debate, it would be the only number up for debate. It would restrict the hands of the politicians. It won't eliminate the politics, but it will minimize it.

the current model put forth by the commision make the percentages much higher, but thats the general idea. It only works if all the deductions go away, because it would really make people pay the ammounts on the scale. In order for the deficit to go away, we need to know our exact revenue, and build a spending program that is within those means. Remember... right now, the budgets are estimated guesses basically. No one really knows how much taxes we will take in and how many agencies will give back surplus funds, or ask for more. The Dept of Defense is usually the only one that asks for more.

This model, btw could effectively make half of the IRS need to be disolved and absorbed into other agencies. we would have an appropriate part of the gov't to shut down.

You get a certain amount taken out of your weekly income based on what you earn. period. no checks at the end of the year. When you earn a certain amount defined by the scale above divided by week, you get a certain amount taken out for that earning that week. No more need to file tax returns if you get rid of the deductions.

Its one of the more radical suggestions the commission made, but when you look at the IRS budget you can see why it can be so lucrative a choice. In 2010 the IRS spent 12 billion dollars. Six Billion can go to other underfunded and needed safety net programs like WIC and medicaid.

So we could make the tax dodgers pay, decrease the overall tax amount taken out of checks weekly, (which would be job creating and economic stimulus:more money in the hands of the middle class to buy american manufactured items) shrink one of the Govt largest agencies by half, get rid of individual tax returns entirely for the citizenry, and reduce the deficit, just in paperwork rediuction, by six billion dollars.

The government employees from the IRS would shift over to the new corporate regulatory agency to oversee them and make sure that corporations are paying.

I think the report calls for a freeze on gov't hiring, which Obama enacted, so the extra employees would be shifted around to other agencies that have vacancies.

 

[chance1]

right

get rid of deductions, most if not all of them, and then make a lower base tax.

Its really frustrates me that people are not understanding the difference between a tax rate and a tax burden.

the tax rate is the beginning fo the discussion when you start paying taxes... when you file for a return, your tax burden is determined. Most poor pay little to none. The rich have a negative tax burden, meaning, they get refunds more than everyone else... Koch brothers sued the IRS in 2005 for shorting them 20 million on their refund check.

So theres a really big difference between a tax burden and a tax rate. Republicans hide the truth behind this and the democrats are too inept to communicate that clearly and simply enough for the average voter to understand.

the truth is the middle class pays for most of the workings of the gov't, while the rich get refunds galore.

It is immoral and it needs to stop. The debt commission was bipartisan.

it clearly stated that increasing revenue through the IRS AND cuts to entitlements would be the only way to balance the budget before one of the three entitlement programs went bust... that would be medicare and its estimated that it has about nine years left.

Tax cuts that amount in the trillions for the rich that already have a negative tax burden while killing medicare outright is immoral and its what the republicans passed yesterday.

It was kabooki theatre. they knew the senate would refuse to take up the bill and they knew the president would never sign it. yet they wasted thousands of dollars and priceless hours on something that would never be accepted by the other branches of the Gov't

Its time the house of reps realized they are only one of three parts of Gov't and they need to write legislation that can get through the senate, then get the presidents signature. Until then, we ought to send the nationat republican party the bill for operating costs of the house of reps.

clarity
intelligence
reasonablilty

who is this man and what have u done with patchy ?

good post

trying to find the word "cunt" in here - and I can't - where'd u hide it?

there it is

 

[BostonPirate]

clarity
intelligence
reasonablilty

who is this man and what have u done with patchy ?

good post

trying to find the word "cunt" in here - and I can't - where'd u hide it?

there it is

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWN_AL9vrbc[/ame]

 

[thevofl]

clarity
intelligence
reasonablilty

who is this man and what have u done with patchy ?

good post

trying to find the word "cunt" in here - and I can't - where'd u hide it?

there it is

Um, what is the point of this?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Guys,

I have to ask a question, because I really want to know the answer to it. I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I really want to know your ideas and thoughts.

I have heard a number of people say they want the rich to pay their fair share, but I have no clue to what that means. From context, I get they are saying they want the rich to pay more without providing a firm number--essentially raising the bar without telling the person how high it will go. No details are mentioned with it.

What does "fair share" mean to you? Is there a number / percentage you have in mind? Or is it a conceptual amount?

Thank you in advance.

Well first off, let's put it into some context.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts would put things back onto a level playing field, because those tax cuts didn't exist pre 2000.

In addition, the Bush Tax cuts haven't shown any value.

Deficit / Debt Dilemma is a good article that might help answer some of your questions.

 

[thevofl]

Well first off, let's put it into some context.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts would put things back onto a level playing field, because those tax cuts didn't exist pre 2000.

In addition, the Bush Tax cuts haven't shown any value.

Deficit / Debt Dilemma is a good article that might help answer some of your questions.

It doesn't really answer my questions. It does provide a good context, but I am still wondering what people's perception of fare share is. If I read right, you are saying pre-Bush tax cuts.

 

[Stardreamer]

Fair to me is that the system treats everyone equally. Equal treatment under the law. Many progressive tax systems do not meet this criteria as I understand them. For example, if you make $50,000 all your income is taxed at 50% but if you make $30,000 all your income is taxed at 30%. That is not fair because the individuals are being treated differently. What I would consider fair:

- A flat tax rate. Everyone is taxed at the same rate, with a personal exemption based on the poverty rate.

- A system that applies taxes in levels, in the example above your first $30,000 is taxed at 30% but $30,001 - $50,000 is taxed at 50%. This gives you the progressive scale but applies it equally to everyone. The lowest bracket would be determined by poverty and set to 0%.

- A consumption tax. With either vital necessities exempted or a stipend to address the poor.

My grasp of economics is not good enough to say what the actual levels should be but as long as they are being applied 'fairly' and the people have representation I think the system can balance itself.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

Fair to me is that the system treats everyone equally. Equal treatment under the law. Many progressive tax systems do not meet this criteria as I understand them. For example, if you make $50,000 all your income is taxed at 50% but if you make $30,000 all your income is taxed at 30%. That is not fair because the individuals are being treated differently. What I would consider fair:

Our taxes do not do this. Using your example let's have the tax bracket begin at 30k. Your first 30k of income is taxed at 30%, every dollar you earn after that number is taxed at 50%. Your entire income is not taxed at 50% if you make $30,001, only that one additional dollar.

 

[construct]

Our taxes do not do this. Using your example let's have the tax bracket begin at 30k. Your first 30k of income is taxed at 30%, every dollar you earn after that number is taxed at 50%. Your entire income is not taxed at 50% if you make $30,001, only that one additional dollar.

Yes. And I would suggest looking at more brackets rather than less, with the top bracket being at 70%. Pick an amount for the 70% bracket. Is $500,000 too low? Perhaps. How about $2,000,000? That may be better.

Then let's re-examine some of the deductions and exclusions. Let's prospectively eliminate Roth IRAs and prohibit further contributions to the ones already in place, for example. Let's scrap the deduction for donations to charity. Let's think about eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. These are a few ideas on reform of the personal income tax. Remember what Leona Helmsley said--"Taxes are for the little people." She was right, and that needs to be changed.

Oh, and capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

Corporate income tax may need more work than that. I suspect playing the system is easier there, and that needs to be stopped.