"Fair Share"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

So in your opinion, what's the number that IS their fair share Stevie?
At what number does it become fair? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of those rich folks incomes?
Should capital gains income be taxed at the exact sames rates as earned income is? Its all income after-all right?

If one 1% of all the people in the US are paying 22% of all the money coming into the treasury, how much more do they need to pay in, to be fair...their fair share?

And if 5% of all people in the US are paying 40% of all the money coming into the treasury, how much more do they need to pay in, as their fair share?

That leaves 95% of all the other folks in the country to pay the remaining 60% of all the rest of the money coming in. So if the rich folks have to pay more, then the 60% of the rest of us can pay less, right? How much less? Or should the Congress simply increase their federal spending to make up for the windfall from the rich folks?

CC, you are only talking about Federal Taxes. Poor people pay regressive state and local taxes that hardly effects the rich.

You have to have a complete discussion when talking about progressive and regressive taxes, you can not just talk about one without talking about the other.

Not only that we are spending old people's retirement benifits (SS and Medicare) on Defense. Is that what you think is right for the rich to do? Either we raise the tax rate on the rich or we cut Defense spending. But quit giving these huge tax breaks to the rich and then cry for the bastards that they are paying to much. They are not. In fact the middle class is not paying enough for the present Defense spending that this country does. The poor do not really have shit to pay.

What you had were two wars and a huge tax rate cut....and now the same folks that were for the wars and the tax cuts are bitching about the deficit and restoring at least some of the tax rates.

Does that really make any math sense?

It would be like charging two credit card to the max and paying just part of the interest and then bitching that the credit card company want you to pay more.

[Old-T]

The idea that there is a single "Fair Share" is asinine. There are some things that most would agree are unfair--such as taxing lower incomes at a higher rate--but much beyond that it is NOT an issue of "fair".

It is neither Good nor Evil to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages. It is neither Good nor Evil to allow an exemption for mortgage insurance. These things will always favor some people/situations over others, no matter what way you decide to tax. Some are probably better for certain economic objectives, but often the economic objectives themselves can be argued as part good and part bad depending upon where you sit.

Even the argument that Defense does not make a profit--I really doubt most people would be happy if it DID make a profit, since that would likely mean we are doing some things--such as even more massive arms sales--that people as a whole have issues with.

Government budgets are inherently uneven, and inherently unfair to some. Even the extreme Libertarian view is far from fair to all--it is just biased towards certain classes and people who prefer certain lifestyles. Absolutes are rarely good.

Part of our problem is we have been living with some very inequitable rules for a very long time--often because we either didn't think through the consequences or the environment has changed--and now people don't want to do the arduous hard work to fix them now.

The SS and Medicare fixes are actually relatively simple--but still run into emotional roadblocks by people with vested biases. How much harder would it be to truly fix the tax system, for example? The simplistic "flat tax, no exemptions" folks refuse to live in the real world where that would bankrupt a lot of people who have been playing by one set of rules for so long. It really does need to be changed in the name of Fairness and efficiency, but any such changes need to ne THOUGHT OUT and depoliticized, and the transition will not be "equal" to everyone. Unfortunately we seem unable and unwilling to depoliticize anything just now.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Don't look at income, look at wealth. What percent of assets do the top 1%, etc. have? That's the relevant question. Plus, taxes SHOULD be progressive.

As the editorial points out, the taxes ARE progressive.

Once you start talking about taxing assets, how much of your firm's law library, file cabinets, customer files, computer systems, and office furniture are taxable? How are they appraised, how is the tax computed?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why?

"We" gonna start filing "Inventories" with the IRS?

Some very interesting research on this lately. Huge amounts of revenue can be obtained by very modest taxes on assets. I don't recall exact numbers, but I saw proposaled numbers for 1/2% and 1% taxes on assets over $1M and the doubling that at either $5M or $10M. Just a huge amount of revenue.

And actually, I suspect tht most people would just file a sworn declaration that they were under the threshold.

And Sidewinder, those assets you mention are already taxed by Texas. It's called the ad valorem tax. I declare a value to the county appraisal district -- called rendering -- and they appraise my business assets. You can fight appraisal just like the appraisal on your house. We fought them and won at the Aporaisal Board level on the value of our library, in fact. It's really a simple process.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Some very interesting research on this lately. Huge amounts of revenue can be obtained by very modest taxes on assets. I don't recall exact numbers, but I saw proposaled numbers for 1/2% and 1% taxes on assets over $1M and the doubling that at either $5M or $10M. Just a huge amount of revenue.

And actually, I suspect tht most people would just file a sworn declaration that they were under the threshold.

And Sidewinder, those assets you mention are already taxed by Texas. It's called the ad valorem tax. I declare a value to the county appraisal district -- called rendering -- and they appraise my business assets. You can fight appraisal just like the appraisal on your house. We fought them and won at the Aporaisal Board level on the value of our library, in fact. It's really a simple process.

But the federal government does not have the power to tax assets. They have the power to tax income (as it is received).

The assets people have was bought with money that was already taxed by the IRS. So taxing it again is a double tax on the same income.

I remember Bill Clinton tried to do something like this in the 90s. The idea was a retroactive income tax - i.e., the tax under the first George Bush wasn't high enough so they were going to travel back in time and get more taxes. Unfortunately, I don't remember what became of the proposal.

This doesn't stop states from doing it. They have broader taxing power. But the federal government still has to pretend to play by the Constitution's rules.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by WTF

CC, you are only talking about Federal Taxes. Poor people pay regressive state and local taxes that hardly effects the rich.

You have to have a complete discussion when talking about progressive and regressive taxes, you can not just talk about one without talking about the other.

Not only that we are spending old people's retirement benifits (SS and Medicare) on Defense. Is that what you think is right for the rich to do? Either we raise the tax rate on the rich or we cut Defense spending. But quit giving these huge tax breaks to the rich and then cry for the bastards that they are paying to much. They are not. In fact the middle class is not paying enough for the present Defense spending that this country does. The poor do not really have shit to pay.

What you had were two wars and a huge tax rate cut....and now the same folks that were for the wars and the tax cuts are bitching about the deficit and restoring at least some of the tax rates.

Does that really make any math sense?

It would be like charging two credit card to the max and paying just part of the interest and then bitching that the credit card company want you to pay more.

Yes Sir, two different things no doubt, federal vs state income taxes. There is only one federal income tax while there are 50 state income tax variables. Then there are 1000's of local tax variables. Hell, its a moot point in Texas as there is no state income tax. Since most of what we discuss in here revolves around the federal aspect of it, lets stick with that.

So I throw the questions to you then

So in your opinion, what's the number that IS their fair share?
At what number does it become fair? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of those rich folks incomes?
Should capital gains income be taxed at the exact sames rates as earned income is? Its all income after-all right?

[TheDaliLama]

The dems are thieves.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Yes Sir, two different things no doubt, federal vs state income taxes. There is only one federal income tax while there are 50 state income tax variables. Then there are 1000's of local tax variables. Hell, its a moot point in Texas as there is no state income tax. Since most of what we discuss in here revolves around the federal aspect of it, lets stick with that.

So I throw the questions to you then

Well I say a fair share is what pays the bills. Do you want a Caddy Defense and pay for it with a VW tax rate? That really is the question you know....How much longer do you want to keep raiding SS and Medicare to pay for Defense.

Since we are already paid up on SS and Medicare, I say we pay wtf ever we all decide we think is fair for Defense. Or do you think we should keep leaving IOU's in SS and Medicare's kitty?

Sounds like it is back to what I said. We either raise taxes or cut Defense.

What do you charge a person that wants a Caddy but only wants to pay the price of a VW? What do you think is fair in this regard? Should we get GrandMa and Pa to make up the difference out of their retirement?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

The dems are thieves.

Why because they have an education?

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well I say a fair share is what pays the bills.

I agree. So to reduce the deficit we must either reduce spending or increase revenue to the federal government. (for this exercise lets not get into the spending/cutting specifics) The current administration doesn't show much sign of reducing overall spending so they must increase revenue (raise taxes).

Lets try it this way; lets assume most of these rich folks are married and filing jointly. Here are their current federal income tax brackets

Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses

10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400
15% on taxable income over $17,400 to $70,700
25% on taxable income over $70,700 to $142,700
28% on taxable income over $142,700 to $217,450
33% on taxable income over $217,450 to $388,350
35% on taxable income over $388,350.

I keep hearing that folks making $250K and up are those rich folks and the primary target for raising their tax rates, that will affect the bottom two brackets listed. Plus many politicians have said that the rich need to pay a "little bit more". So with that in mind, the 33% and 35% rates need to go up to what? What are the numbers that will make up the rich folks fair-share?

Anyone want to take a shot at this?

[CuteOldGuy]

Do away with income tax and ad valorem taxes. They only foster class warfare and there isn't enough income or wealth to tax to make a difference. Spending mist be cut. Then we need to adopt the FairTax and watch the economy boom.

[Chica Chaser]

The FairTax is the ultimate answer COG. But the politicians in DC (of any party) will never give up the control and transfer that power back to the people.

[JD Barleycorn]

You have to understand what payroll taxes are. They are not a normal tax that goes into the general fund. It is not a tax for the cost of doing business. The payroll tax goes to Social Security and that money is yours if you live long enough to draw it out. Despite what Obama has claimed, he is not saving you money by cutting the payroll tax, he is costing you money down the line when you retire. The average person pays about 12.4 % in payroll taxes. Your employer covers 6.2% and you cover 6.2 %. Since this is considered overhead for your employer you actually pay it all. So a person making about 50,000 dollars yearly pays about $3100 (6.2%) a year and your employer matches with money that could be yours as well for $6200 a year. About every dozen years it doubles in value until you retire. $6200 becomes $12,400 and then become $24,800 and then becomes $49,600 in 36 years. Give it another 12 years for $99,600. Now take away the 2% that Obama is so proud of; $6200 becomes $5200. After 48 years that $99,600 drops to $83,200 or a loss of $16,400 from your retirement. Pretty nice of Obama to do that for you.

This is all based on the idea of an average interest rate of 6% which doubles the balance over 12 years. (divide 72 by the interest rate to find the number of months to double your money)

Just face it, Obama screwed you and you won't know it until you retire.

[TheEnd5]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You have to understand what payroll taxes are. They are not a normal tax that goes into the general fund. It is not a tax for the cost of doing business. The payroll tax goes to Social Security and that money is yours if you live long enough to draw it out. Despite what Obama has claimed, he is not saving you money by cutting the payroll tax, he is costing you money down the line when you retire. The average person pays about 12.4 % in payroll taxes. Your employer covers 6.2% and you cover 6.2 %. Since this is considered overhead for your employer you actually pay it all. So a person making about 50,000 dollars yearly pays about $3100 (6.2%) a year and your employer matches with money that could be yours as well for $6200 a year. About every dozen years it doubles in value until you retire. $6200 becomes $12,400 and then become $24,800 and then becomes $49,600 in 36 years. Give it another 12 years for $99,600. Now take away the 2% that Obama is so proud of; $6200 becomes $5200. After 48 years that $99,600 drops to $83,200 or a loss of $16,400 from your retirement. Pretty nice of Obama to do that for you.

This is all based on the idea of an average interest rate of 6% which doubles the balance over 12 years. (divide 72 by the interest rate to find the number of months to double your money)

Just face it, Obama screwed you and you won't know it until you retire.

Obama did not screw us, it your fucking party that screw the rest of the US so the few can stay rich DUMP FUCK ..... HA HA HA

[TheEnd5]

Online shopping is booming, add a state sales tax to it... This will help save and create jobs and commerial real estate.