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

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 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.

No, you are absolutely wrong. The rich have the money for body guards, fortress like homes, high tech security, etc.. It is the poor that need all of these things much more than the rich or middle class.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Who were you before you were banned?

Now you are starting to sound like Dave, unless you were joking...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Tax and spend liberal is better than borrow and spend neocon.

Yep, Liberals taxe the rich, Neocons tax the poor.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 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.

Or you could look at it like this (which I think is closer to reality): The rich are the biggest source for an increase in revenue. Taxing the poor is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of dried oranges (or however the saying goes). A 1% increase in the marginal tax rate of the top quintile will get far more revenue than increasing the bottom half's marginal tax rate by 1%.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 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.

So by subsidizing the poor; they learn to wait for handouts. Recurrsive process.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ldir
Tax and spend liberal is better than borrow and spend neocon.

Yep, Liberals taxe the rich, Neocons tax the poor.

Oh really? You mean how with Bushes tax cuts the poor that paid nothing in income taxes, still got money back through the child tax credit?

When Bush cut taxes, did he cut taxes just for the rich, or were they tax cuts all across the board, for every bracket?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ldir
Tax and spend liberal is better than borrow and spend neocon.

Yep, Liberals taxe the rich, Neocons tax the poor.

Oh really? You mean how with Bushes tax cuts the poor that paid nothing in income taxes, still got money back through the child tax credit?

When Bush cut taxes, did he cut taxes just for the rich, or were they tax cuts all across the board, for every bracket?

Dont mess up Dave's thread with exposing both sides of the issue!

 

[Jhhnn]

"Fair" tax burden? Depends... on what taxes are supposed to accomplish.

Obviously, there should be sufficient revenue to support whatever level of spending that the People's representatives choose. And, given the profligacy of the past, there should probably be a surplus for the next 10 years or so. Like it or not, the US needs to be in a financial position favorable to paying back the SS trust when needed, projected to begin ~2017. So it's better to reduce debt now, while boomers are still working and are at the peak of earnings.

Taxes also should not impose undue impediments on the children of those at the bottom of the ladder. We don't get to choose our parents- so we need to optimize opportunities for them and their parents, promote the creation of productive citizens through the generations.

We need to consider total taxation, not just federal taxation in order to arrive at an honest answer. Different groups pay radically different % of income for other taxes, and it really doesn't matter which govt entity collects- it all adds up to less in our pockets.

And, whether the Righties like it or not, we need to reverse the accumulation of wealth and income into the hands of a very few, for a variety of reasons. That trend leaves less of the pie for everybody else, regardless of the amount of work performed, and is counter to the whole concept of egalitarian democracy. As we've seen recently, wealth and democracy coexist only because the power of wealth is blunted, limited in various ways, progressive taxes being the foremost mechanism. Concentrated wealth almost has a mind of its own, and seeks to detach the people's representatives from the people and attach them to itself... There are also issues of marginal utility of money and velocity of money, both of which are greatly diminished in the uppermost realms of income, yet both of which are very important to the overall health of any society.

With all that in mind, I'd suggest that current rates are probably a little low across the board, other than at the bottom, given the desire of our representatives to spend, and that they're entirely too low at the very, very top. Not the top 1%, more like the top .3%, which is where the income curve goes near vertical. On one hand, it's a matter of practicality, and on the other, a matter of self-defense for the middle class.

We need higher brackets for the upper end of the top 1%, carrying progressivity further up into the largest incomes. The top 400, for example, earned an average of $174M each in 2000, yet paid a full 1% less in federal taxes than the rest of the top 1%, and the top .01% average ~$25M/yr...

I'd gladly pay big taxes on big money, as would anybody else whose sense of entitlement and self-importance wasn't overblown- total tax rates of 40% on such incomes seem entirely reasonable. I'd gladly pay it... if I made that much money...

 

[piasabird]

10% Accross the board. No tax shelters, no excuses.

Even when we have tax rates, no one actually pays those tax rates. There are thousands of pages of tax code. It is a joke. Every time we hear about taxes from politicians it is about loopholes and give-aways. I say no public dole for anyone and 10% tax for everyone.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: 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?

Unless they are just poor with their money I would hardly think someone making $50K a year would need to get subsidies in order to pay for food, housing, and heating oils.

And I have never been banned. Any particular reason that you ask?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
[ ... ]
When Bush cut taxes, did he cut taxes just for the rich, or were they tax cuts all across the board, for every bracket?

That is yet to be determined, because Bush's so-called tax "cuts" are really loans that will have to be repaid ... with interest. Future tax laws will determine how much of those loans fall to the rich vs. the middle class vs. the poor.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is a stupid way to approach this topic. You don't tax for the sake of taxing, you do it to pay for the things the government needs to do. The relative tax rates at EVERY level should be determined by government spending needs, not the other way around, otherwise we have the modern Republican approach that just gets us farther into debt. The secret is to control SPENDING, and let the tax rates be determined as a result. ...

/thread

One of the great shams perpetrated by the Reagan Right is that it's all about taxes. It's a great campaign slogan that resonates well with the gullible and the greedy, but it is an incompetent, often reckless approach to fiscal policy. It is all about spending. To determine the appropriate level of taxation, we must first determine the amount of money the government needs to fill its mission most effectively (where "effectively" requires we balance costs vs. benefits, i.e., no blank checks). Only when we know what government needs to cost can we then decide how much to tax. A "fair" tax burden is whatever it takes.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: piasabird
10% Accross the board. No tax shelters, no excuses.

Even when we have tax rates, no one actually pays those tax rates. There are thousands of pages of tax code. It is a joke. Every time we hear about taxes from politicians it is about loopholes and give-aways. I say no public dole for anyone and 10% tax for everyone.

When everyone earns the same amount then a "X% with no exceptions tax" would be fair. Not everyone can be rich. There is only a finite amount of money and people have to fill different jobs that have different pay scales.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: piasabird
10% Accross the board. No tax shelters, no excuses.

Even when we have tax rates, no one actually pays those tax rates. There are thousands of pages of tax code. It is a joke. Every time we hear about taxes from politicians it is about loopholes and give-aways. I say no public dole for anyone and 10% tax for everyone.

When everyone earns the same amount then a "X% with no exceptions tax" would be fair. Not everyone can be rich. There is only a finite amount of money and people have to fill different jobs that have different pay scales.

:laugh: So many people in here would do so well under the old India caste system