Can anyone define what a 'fair' tax burden is?

[Tom]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Just because someone CAN pay more doesn't mean it is fair that they be compelled by law to do so.

So why don't we make everyone pay the same amount regardless of income? We already make people with more money pay more - even a flat tax does that.

Sounds good to me. Although in practice a truly flat income tax would not be practical, because there isn't an amount you can tax everyone so that poor people are not over taxed but the government still receives sufficient revenue without implementing brackets or cutoffs.

I am in favor of the fair tax, a national sales tax which eliminates all other federal taxes. With a sales tax, people that buy more stuff pay more taxes, while people that only buy essentials pay no tax at all. This is the most fair system because you determine the amount of tax you pay yourself, whether you are rich or poor.

Fairness is just an opinion. I consider a national sale tax the antithesis of fairness.

And there's nothing "fair" about individuals deciding how much tax to pay. That also is completely unfair In my opinion.

If you start from a real understanding of where wealth comes from, then having higher tax brackets for higher incomes makes perfect sense, and is by far the most fair. I assume you know how brackets work ? Everybody pays the same % on income within each bracket, so there's absolutely nothing unfair about it.

Only a small part of wealth comes from work or innovation. The largest part of wealth comes from being part of a society. How rich would Bill Gates be with no customers ?

It follows that the more wealth an individual gains from being part of a society, the larger his or her debt to that society is.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ahhh you are slightly wrong. Spending actually has gone down before, in terms of GDP which is all that matters.
The economy grows every year and therefore spending grows with it, simple concept.
So tracking the growth of spending in pure dollar terms in rather meaningless.
A much better way to track growth of government spending is to track its growth vs. GDP. I.E. how large of a chunk of the pie is the federal government taking.
So from the F.Y 2007 budget's historical tables PDF here are recent figures for revenue and outlays as a percentage of GDP. (search google for the chart if you want to see for yourself)
Year receipts outlays deficit/surplus
1980 19.0% 21.7% -2.7 Carter
1984 17.4% 22.2% -4.8 Reagan
1988 18.2% 21.3% -3.1 Reagan
1990 18.0% 21.8% -3.9 Bush 41
1994 18.1% 21.0% -2.9 Clinton/Democrat congress
1996 18.9% 20.3% -1.4 Clinton/Republican congress
1998 20.0% 19.2% +0.8 Clinton/Republican congress
2000 20.9% 18.4% +2.4 Clinton/Republican congress
2002 17.9% 19.4% -1.5 Bush
2004 16.3% 20.0% -3.5 Bush

So you can clearly see that we did have a decrease in spending under the Clinton/Republican congress. Under Bush spending has gone back up, but tax revenue has not.
So the government can control and even cut its spending, although much of the Clinton era decrease was due to cuts in defense spending.

So this brings me back to my original question:
How much of our money should the government take from us and how much of our money should the government spend?

I think it's funny that the worst time (i.e. spending is more than revenue) seems to be under fiscally responsible Republican presidents. Yeah, I know democratic congress and all. But that doesn't hold true for GW, which is why I am still puzzled as to why fiscal conservatives still voted for him.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Just because someone CAN pay more doesn't mean it is fair that they be compelled by law to do so.

So why don't we make everyone pay the same amount regardless of income? We already make people with more money pay more - even a flat tax does that.

Sounds good to me. Although in practice a truly flat income tax would not be practical, because there isn't an amount you can tax everyone so that poor people are not over taxed but the government still receives sufficient revenue without implementing brackets or cutoffs.

I am in favor of the fair tax, a national sales tax which eliminates all other federal taxes. With a sales tax, people that buy more stuff pay more taxes, while people that only buy essentials pay no tax at all. This is the most fair system because you determine the amount of tax you pay yourself, whether you are rich or poor.

Fairness is just an opinion. I consider a national sale tax the antithesis of fairness.

And there's nothing "fair" about individuals deciding how much tax to pay. That also is completely unfair In my opinion.

If you start from a real understanding of where wealth comes from, then having higher tax brackets for higher incomes makes perfect sense, and is by far the most fair. I assume you know how brackets work ? Everybody pays the same % on income within each bracket, so there's absolutely nothing unfair about it.

Only a small part of wealth comes from work or innovation. The largest part of wealth comes from being part of a society. How rich would Bill Gates be with no customers ?

It follows that the more wealth an individual gains from being part of a society, the larger his or her debt to that society is.

That is a silly argument. Everyone benefits from society, people on welfare benefit more than most, so should they pay more in taxes?

Yes, Bill Gates has benefited from society, but society has benefited much more from Bill Gates. which is why "society" has spent so much on his products.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
Uh, you neglect to mention that for say, 2005, our budget was like 2.3 trillion but over 400 billion was borrowed (the deficit) which is like 18 percent that we REALLY paid since we do have to pay back the tax loans. Therefore under BUSH the percent of GDP paid to the government increased ENORMOUSLY. WAY, WAY beyond what is was under Clinton.

I claim /pwned

You can claim anything you want, but you have not posted one thing of value on this thread.

Why not try and answer one of the two questions asked in the OP?

Your premise is nothing but a LIE.
You posted:
Under Clinton we were sending over 20% of ALL the money(GPD) made in this country to the Federal government each year. That number is now down to the 17% range. (1%=Aprox. $124 billion in income)
I proved your premise is FALSE. Therefore you are /pwned.

You are even more /pwned with your other ridiculous premise which is entirely misleading:
If we froze spending at today?s levels we could balance the budget within 5 years without any change to the tax rate
If we froze the budget we are actually cutting the budget (assuming we still have inflation). And if we still have inflation than the dollars we pay may be more but the actual worth of those dollars before inflation stays the same and in real terms nothing would change.

Man, I /pwned you twice in one thread.
And I could do it again at least once more using the info you provided. But I will have pity on you.

/pwned
/pwned
Twice.

Are you really this immature?

And to answer the OP, I have no idea how much we should be paying. Its hard to know how much extra crap there is out there in Government spending and how much is neccessary. Like someone else said, the Gov't survived for a long time with no income tax. So I really am not sure how much we should be paying, but I'd say that it should be signifigantly less than we are paying now.

Since you bring it up, looking at the economic progress the USA made in the 20th century, what detrimental effect of the income tax occurred ?

Also, the primary defense of the United States during the years when there was no income tax was the oceans. You really think that's still sufficient ?

 

[Genx87]

I didn't mean Microsoft in particular as a monopoly, just a random example of a big company. My point was that you think the government's core function involves making sure businesses have a favorable environment, but ignoring the environment of people who grew up in the inner city on welfare. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out that it's pretty easy to see how "as little as possible" grows into a huge behemoth of a government, not everyone agrees as to what is essential to the country.

I agree with what you say about it growing due to people wanting the govt to do things they think it should do. I just happen to disagree with their idea's of what a govt should do 😀

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I didn't mean Microsoft in particular as a monopoly, just a random example of a big company. My point was that you think the government's core function involves making sure businesses have a favorable environment, but ignoring the environment of people who grew up in the inner city on welfare. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out that it's pretty easy to see how "as little as possible" grows into a huge behemoth of a government, not everyone agrees as to what is essential to the country.

I agree with what you say about it growing due to people wanting the govt to do things they think it should do. I just happen to disagree with their idea's of what a govt should do 😀

Yeah, like invent the internet.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
Uh, you neglect to mention that for say, 2005, our budget was like 2.3 trillion but over 400 billion was borrowed (the deficit) which is like 18 percent that we REALLY paid since we do have to pay back the tax loans. Therefore under BUSH the percent of GDP paid to the government increased ENORMOUSLY. WAY, WAY beyond what is was under Clinton.

I claim /pwned

You can claim anything you want, but you have not posted one thing of value on this thread.

Why not try and answer one of the two questions asked in the OP?

Your premise is nothing but a LIE.
You posted:
Under Clinton we were sending over 20% of ALL the money(GPD) made in this country to the Federal government each year. That number is now down to the 17% range. (1%=Aprox. $124 billion in income)
I proved your premise is FALSE. Therefore you are /pwned.

You are even more /pwned with your other ridiculous premise which is entirely misleading:
If we froze spending at today?s levels we could balance the budget within 5 years without any change to the tax rate
If we froze the budget we are actually cutting the budget (assuming we still have inflation). And if we still have inflation than the dollars we pay may be more but the actual worth of those dollars before inflation stays the same and in real terms nothing would change.

Man, I /pwned you twice in one thread.
And I could do it again at least once more using the info you provided. But I will have pity on you.

/pwned
/pwned
Twice.

Are you really this immature?

And to answer the OP, I have no idea how much we should be paying. Its hard to know how much extra crap there is out there in Government spending and how much is neccessary. Like someone else said, the Gov't survived for a long time with no income tax. So I really am not sure how much we should be paying, but I'd say that it should be signifigantly less than we are paying now.

Since you bring it up, looking at the economic progress the USA made in the 20th century, what detrimental effect of the income tax occurred ?

Also, the primary defense of the United States during the years when there was no income tax was the oceans. You really think that's still sufficient ?

I don't know if its been detrimental or not, its hard to tell, I doubt that you could know for sure.

As far as defense spending goes, I agree with you somewhat, we really didn't have much of a standing military until the 20th century. But, do you really think that all of the income taxes that we pay goes towards the defense of our country, or even a significant portion of it?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Just because someone CAN pay more doesn't mean it is fair that they be compelled by law to do so.

So why don't we make everyone pay the same amount regardless of income? We already make people with more money pay more - even a flat tax does that.

Sounds good to me. Although in practice a truly flat income tax would not be practical, because there isn't an amount you can tax everyone so that poor people are not over taxed but the government still receives sufficient revenue without implementing brackets or cutoffs.

I am in favor of the fair tax, a national sales tax which eliminates all other federal taxes. With a sales tax, people that buy more stuff pay more taxes, while people that only buy essentials pay no tax at all. This is the most fair system because you determine the amount of tax you pay yourself, whether you are rich or poor.

Fairness is just an opinion. I consider a national sale tax the antithesis of fairness.

And there's nothing "fair" about individuals deciding how much tax to pay. That also is completely unfair In my opinion.

If you start from a real understanding of where wealth comes from, then having higher tax brackets for higher incomes makes perfect sense, and is by far the most fair. I assume you know how brackets work ? Everybody pays the same % on income within each bracket, so there's absolutely nothing unfair about it.

Only a small part of wealth comes from work or innovation. The largest part of wealth comes from being part of a society. How rich would Bill Gates be with no customers ?

It follows that the more wealth an individual gains from being part of a society, the larger his or her debt to that society is.

That is a silly argument. Everyone benefits from society, people on welfare benefit more than most, so should they pay more in taxes?

Yes, Bill Gates has benefited from society, but society has benefited much more from Bill Gates. which is why "society" has spent so much on his products.

How can you say people on welfare benefit more than a billionaire ? I guess you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Bill Gates' wealth does not come just from his ideas or his work. His products would be worthless without a society of people to sell them too. If that society didn't build an infrastructure, how would he produce sell his products ? If that society didn't protect his wealth for him, you think he could do it himself ? What about currency, his wealth would be pretty fleeting if he wasn't part of a stable economic system.

Do you understand that Bill Gates would have no wealth at all, if not for his being part of a society ? All of his billions are a benefit of his being part of a society.

And that's a lot more than what a person on welfare gets.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
Uh, you neglect to mention that for say, 2005, our budget was like 2.3 trillion but over 400 billion was borrowed (the deficit) which is like 18 percent that we REALLY paid since we do have to pay back the tax loans. Therefore under BUSH the percent of GDP paid to the government increased ENORMOUSLY. WAY, WAY beyond what is was under Clinton.

I claim /pwned

You can claim anything you want, but you have not posted one thing of value on this thread.

Why not try and answer one of the two questions asked in the OP?

Your premise is nothing but a LIE.
You posted:
Under Clinton we were sending over 20% of ALL the money(GPD) made in this country to the Federal government each year. That number is now down to the 17% range. (1%=Aprox. $124 billion in income)
I proved your premise is FALSE. Therefore you are /pwned.

You are even more /pwned with your other ridiculous premise which is entirely misleading:
If we froze spending at today?s levels we could balance the budget within 5 years without any change to the tax rate
If we froze the budget we are actually cutting the budget (assuming we still have inflation). And if we still have inflation than the dollars we pay may be more but the actual worth of those dollars before inflation stays the same and in real terms nothing would change.

Man, I /pwned you twice in one thread.
And I could do it again at least once more using the info you provided. But I will have pity on you.

/pwned
/pwned
Twice.

Are you really this immature?

And to answer the OP, I have no idea how much we should be paying. Its hard to know how much extra crap there is out there in Government spending and how much is neccessary. Like someone else said, the Gov't survived for a long time with no income tax. So I really am not sure how much we should be paying, but I'd say that it should be signifigantly less than we are paying now.

Since you bring it up, looking at the economic progress the USA made in the 20th century, what detrimental effect of the income tax occurred ?

Also, the primary defense of the United States during the years when there was no income tax was the oceans. You really think that's still sufficient ?

I don't know if its been detrimental or not, its hard to tell, I doubt that you could know for sure.

As far as defense spending goes, I agree with you somewhat, we really didn't have much of a standing military until the 20th century. But, do you really think that all of the income taxes that we pay goes towards the defense of our country, or even a significant portion of it?

Actually I do know that the largest category of spending of income tax receipts is for defense, and always has been. And depending on your definition of defense, most spending that isn't specifically labeled as defense spending, actually is.

And I'm not the one arguing that there's something wrong with income taxes, you are. So the burden is on you to explain how we would have been better off without them in the 20th century ?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Tom

Actually I do know that the largest category of spending of income tax receipts is for defense, and always has been. And depending on your definition of defense, most spending that isn't specifically labeled as defense spending, actually is.

And I'm not the one arguing that there's something wrong with income taxes, you are. So the burden is on you to explain how we would have been better off without them in the 20th century ?

I am not saying that there is something wrong with income taxes, I think that taking 30 percent of my income, then with all of the other taxes that we pay, it probably adds up to close to half of my income (I could be way off, but it seems about right), it seems a little excessive.

As for Bill Gates, you are right in everything that you say, but it is no different for any other person that is living a decent life. But, Bill Gates has contributed much more to society, and the world as a whole, than you or I ever will. Society is giving their money to him willingly, it is not something that he is forcing us to do.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bird222
I think it's funny that the worst time (i.e. spending is more than revenue) seems to be under fiscally responsible Republican presidents. Yeah, I know democratic congress and all. But that doesn't hold true for GW, which is why I am still puzzled as to why fiscal conservatives still voted for him.

As a fiscal conservative Bush SUCKS no doubt about that.
A lot of the growth in spending belongs to congress as well.
How much of the increase in spending is because of ear marks and other pork that goes to each congressperson's district?

Why did we vote for him? Well look at who he ran against.
Your logic assumes ?well Bush is not a good fiscal conservative so I should vote for Kerry who is a tax and spend liberal?

Not a good idea huh? Call it voting for the lesser of two evils, something we do way to often in this country.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bird222
I think it's funny that the worst time (i.e. spending is more than revenue) seems to be under fiscally responsible Republican presidents. Yeah, I know democratic congress and all. But that doesn't hold true for GW, which is why I am still puzzled as to why fiscal conservatives still voted for him.

As a fiscal conservative Bush SUCKS no doubt about that.
A lot of the growth in spending belongs to congress as well.
How much of the increase in spending is because of ear marks and other pork that goes to each congressperson's district?

Why did we vote for him? Well look at who he ran against.
Your logic assumes ?well Bush is not a good fiscal conservative so I should vote for Kerry who is a tax and spend liberal?

Not a good idea huh? Call it voting for the lesser of two evils, something we do way to often in this country.

Tax and spend liberal is better than borrow and spend neocon.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tom

Actually I do know that the largest category of spending of income tax receipts is for defense, and always has been. And depending on your definition of defense, most spending that isn't specifically labeled as defense spending, actually is.

And I'm not the one arguing that there's something wrong with income taxes, you are. So the burden is on you to explain how we would have been better off without them in the 20th century ?

I am not saying that there is something wrong with income taxes, I think that taking 30 percent of my income, then with all of the other taxes that we pay, it probably adds up to close to half of my income (I could be way off, but it seems about right), it seems a little excessive.

As for Bill Gates, you are right in everything that you say, but it is no different for any other person that is living a decent life. But, Bill Gates has contributed much more to society, and the world as a whole, than you or I ever will. Society is giving their money to him willingly, it is not something that he is forcing us to do.

I agree, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with people getting rich, as long as we don't lose sight of the role society plays in the process.

Because when people forget about that, that's when you hear people talking about things like it's their money, or that things like estate taxes are inherently unfair.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bird222
I think it's funny that the worst time (i.e. spending is more than revenue) seems to be under fiscally responsible Republican presidents. Yeah, I know democratic congress and all. But that doesn't hold true for GW, which is why I am still puzzled as to why fiscal conservatives still voted for him.

As a fiscal conservative Bush SUCKS no doubt about that.
A lot of the growth in spending belongs to congress as well.
How much of the increase in spending is because of ear marks and other pork that goes to each congressperson's district?

Why did we vote for him? Well look at who he ran against.
Your logic assumes ?well Bush is not a good fiscal conservative so I should vote for Kerry who is a tax and spend liberal?

Not a good idea huh? Call it voting for the lesser of two evils, something we do way to often in this country.

Tax and spend liberal is better than borrow and spend neocon.

There isn't much difference between the two.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tom

Actually I do know that the largest category of spending of income tax receipts is for defense, and always has been. And depending on your definition of defense, most spending that isn't specifically labeled as defense spending, actually is.

And I'm not the one arguing that there's something wrong with income taxes, you are. So the burden is on you to explain how we would have been better off without them in the 20th century ?

I am not saying that there is something wrong with income taxes, I think that taking 30 percent of my income, then with all of the other taxes that we pay, it probably adds up to close to half of my income (I could be way off, but it seems about right), it seems a little excessive.

As for Bill Gates, you are right in everything that you say, but it is no different for any other person that is living a decent life. But, Bill Gates has contributed much more to society, and the world as a whole, than you or I ever will. Society is giving their money to him willingly, it is not something that he is forcing us to do.

I agree, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with people getting rich, as long as we don't lose sight of the role society plays in the process.

Because when people forget about that, that's when you hear people talking about things like it's their money, or that things like estate taxes are inherently unfair.

You're right, but people also lose sight of the role that these rich people play in society.

 

[IGBT]

..nothing stopping liberals from writting checks to the US treasury if they feel they aren't paying enough taxes.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..nothing stopping liberals from writting checks to the US treasury if they feel they aren't paying enough taxes.

Yeah, so the rich can reduce their taxes some more. Brilliant.

Oviously everybody thinks the less they pay and the more the next guy pays is what's fair, it's a little harder (if even possible?) to determine what actually is fair though.

I personally don't think any married, head of household making less the $50,000/year should have to pay any federal taxes, but on the other hand I don't think I'll ever make even close to $50,000 a year either.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I personally don't think any married, head of household making less the $50,000/year should have to pay any federal taxes, but on the other hand I don't think I'll ever make even close to $50,000 a year either.

You mean you will make more?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Well no sh!t. That's an obvious answer but one that isn't likely to happen. How often has the federal budget actually gone down? And don't try to tell me that if you give Congress more money they will just spend it. Bush and Reagan have shown that not to be the case with their tax cuts and large deficits and also Clinton has shown that not to be the case with tax increases and surpluses.

ahhh you are slightly wrong. Spending actually has gone down before, in terms of GDP which is all that matters.
The economy grows every year and therefore spending grows with it, simple concept.
So tracking the growth of spending in pure dollar terms in rather meaningless.
A much better way to track growth of government spending is to track its growth vs. GDP. I.E. how large of a chunk of the pie is the federal government taking.
So from the F.Y 2007 budget's historical tables PDF here are recent figures for revenue and outlays as a percentage of GDP. (search google for the chart if you want to see for yourself)
Year receipts outlays deficit/surplus
1980 19.0% 21.7% -2.7 Carter
1984 17.4% 22.2% -4.8 Reagan
1988 18.2% 21.3% -3.1 Reagan
1990 18.0% 21.8% -3.9 Bush 41
1994 18.1% 21.0% -2.9 Clinton/Democrat congress
1996 18.9% 20.3% -1.4 Clinton/Republican congress
1998 20.0% 19.2% +0.8 Clinton/Republican congress
2000 20.9% 18.4% +2.4 Clinton/Republican congress
2002 17.9% 19.4% -1.5 Bush
2004 16.3% 20.0% -3.5 Bush

So you can clearly see that we did have a decrease in spending under the Clinton/Republican congress. Under Bush spending has gone back up, but tax revenue has not.
So the government can control and even cut its spending, although much of the Clinton era decrease was due to cuts in defense spending.

So this brings me back to my original question:
How much of our money should the government take from us and how much of our money should the government spend?

That wouldn't be cutting spending. Cutting spending would be actual cuts in the budget adjusted for inflation. Spending does not have to increase when GDP grows, there's no reason it has to.

Also why did you bold that second statement of mine? Your numbers back my statement up.

In regards to your last question, they should spend slightly less than they take in. This would reduce our national debt and our trade deficit. Considering the US dollar is losing its power as a major reserve currency, we're going to want to start tightening the budget quite a bit. Couple this with the nightmare that SS and Medicare will cause in a few years and there is more fuel to the fire for tightening the budget.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I personally don't think any married, head of household making less the $50,000/year should have to pay any federal taxes, but on the other hand I don't think I'll ever make even close to $50,000 a year either.

You mean you will make more?

LOL, I wished. I'd gladly pay the taxes on it!!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Also why did you bold that second statement of mine? Your numbers back my statement up.

Your statement was "How often has the federal budget actually gone down? " And I posted evidence that it did go down in terms of GDP.
We will NEVER see the actual dollar amount go down, not even when adjusted for inflation. So our best hope is to lower it in terms of GDP. In essence, let's grow the economy fast that we grow the budget.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: IGBT
..nothing stopping liberals from writting checks to the US treasury if they feel they aren't paying enough taxes.

Yeah, so the rich can reduce their taxes some more. Brilliant.

Oviously everybody thinks the less they pay and the more the next guy pays is what's fair, it's a little harder (if even possible?) to determine what actually is fair though.

I personally don't think any married, head of household making less the $50,000/year should have to pay any federal taxes, but on the other hand I don't think I'll ever make even close to $50,000 a year either.

To clarify your point. You feel that 70% of the citizens of this country should not have to pay Federal income taxes. The other 30% should have to pay all of the Federal income tax burden?

Yeah.... I can see how that is "fair".

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Also why did you bold that second statement of mine? Your numbers back my statement up.

Your statement was "How often has the federal budget actually gone down? " And I posted evidence that it did go down in terms of GDP.
We will NEVER see the actual dollar amount go down, not even when adjusted for inflation. So our best hope is to lower it in terms of GDP. In essence, let's grow the economy fast that we grow the budget.

I meant the other sentence you bolded. 😉

Well my argument against Whoozyerdaddy was arguing that we'll never see an actual cut in the budget. He was arguing to spend less which I agree with but don't see it as very likely to happen. I'll agree that slowed spending is good but I would also like to see slight tax raises to lower our debt.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone define for me what a ?fair? tax burden is on the ?rich?? Or even the non-rich.

Also how much money should we send as a country to the federal government each year. Under Clinton we were sending over 20% of ALL the money(GPD) made in this country to the Federal government each year. That number is now down to the 17% range. (1%=Aprox. $124 billion in income)

So two questions for everyone:
What is a ?fair? amount for people to pay? Specifically, the bottom 50% of people, the top 50% top 25% top 10% and top 1%
Here are rough figures for what each group pays now (effective rates)
Bottom 50% 3%
top 50% make $29k pay 13%
top 25% make $57k pay 15%
top 10% make $94k pay 18.5%
Top 1% make $295k pay 24.3%

And how much of the GDP should the federal government collect in taxes each year and therefore how much should it be allowed to spend so it has a balanced budget?

I am not asking for your opinion on tax cuts or the laffer curve, but on the rates people actually pay. There effective tax rate.

Think of it this way. The rich pay more taxes because it benefits them more! Government is there to provide order, and the rich have more to lose if all things went to complete chaos.

Welfare? Its there to keep people off the streets so they don't shoot rich people with a gun as they drive by in their 100,000 dollar cars.

Social Security? Its there so the poor don't need to steal money from the rich just to feed, house, and care for their elderly parents.

Minimum Wage? Its there so the poor can feed, clothe, and house themselves so they don't steal from the rich in order to do so.

Medicare? Its there so poor people don't spread disease and infect the rich.

Sanitation? So the rich can be rid of pesky smells as they drive by poor neighborhoods.

Law Enforcement? Obviously to protect the rich's vast holdings.

If these government programs benefit the rich more than the poor, why shouldn't the rich bear much more of the tax burden? The rich are not paying enough IMO.

Edited: Format/Spelling errors/More examples.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: IGBT
..nothing stopping liberals from writting checks to the US treasury if they feel they aren't paying enough taxes.

Yeah, so the rich can reduce their taxes some more. Brilliant.

Oviously everybody thinks the less they pay and the more the next guy pays is what's fair, it's a little harder (if even possible?) to determine what actually is fair though.

I personally don't think any married, head of household making less the $50,000/year should have to pay any federal taxes, but on the other hand I don't think I'll ever make even close to $50,000 a year either.

To clarify your point. You feel that 70% of the citizens of this country should not have to pay Federal income taxes. The other 30% should have to pay all of the Federal income tax burden?

Yeah.... I can see how that is "fair".

To clarify my point, how do you expect people who can't even afford health care and get subsidized on their heat, food, housing, etc to come up with money to pay federal taxes? LMAO, the more youy take from them to pay taxes the more they have to be subsidized by the state and federal goverments. It's counter productive.

The only thing that can come about from taxing them is that more people will qualify for welfare and when the cost of welfare subsidies goes up you'll have something else to wring your hands and whine about.

Who were you before you were banned?