Paying "fair share", and what does that mean to you?

[werepossum]

But, but, but where's the love? Don't you feel bad for those that don't do well in life? Shouldn't people be able to buy $5000 rims for their $2000 car if they only make $20000/yr? If you tax people fairly, then they might have to actually live within their means.

I am all for taxing the rich at the same rate as the poor. The rich don't need any more breaks and the bigger leeches need to learn that everything isn't free just because they are poor.

I say bigger leeches because everyone in this country can be considered a leech of some sort---using public roads, police, fire, etc. This is to head off the jackasses that get insulted by calling people a leech on society when technically everyone is.

LOL I actually do feel bad for a lot of the poor. Some people start off with 2 strikes against them, no bat, and a fast slider coming high and tight. Shitty and/or absent and/or addicted parent(s), schools neither capable of nor inclined to teaching, few or no positive role models - it takes a hell of a person to succeed given those preconditions. But just because I feel bad for them doesn't mean I want to carry them through life. I'm all in favor of programs to spread more opportunity, and all opposed to programs designed to transfer wealth to make opportunity obsolete.

 

[HendrixFan]

It actually sounds like your mother would have paid NO income taxes under Lithium's plan, since that certainly sounds like poverty. And while your mother certainly sounds like a great American - in fact, a shining example of Lithium's dictum that we all need to contribute - his point is still valid. Far too many people don't contribute, or even pull out more than even their Social Security taxes.

The more I think about your point about the EIC skewing the numbers, the more I agree. Instead of half the people not paying federal income tax, it's some lower number not paying federal income tax, with some of that lower number essentially drawing welfare on top of not paying.

We were above the poverty line, but by just a hair. Being a hair above some arbitrary line is very similar to being below that line. Also, just because she would have paid no income taxes under Lithium's plan, doesn't mean she wasn't paying plenty of other taxes on her income. Yet if she was under Lithium's plan she would have been accused of not contributing. His subtle jab that her stupidity and laziness were the cause of our situation was not helpful.

Last I saw, the EIC was around $50B annually in the budget. I tried to find a current number was wasn't able to. I am 100% behind the idea of drastically reducing the EIC or eliminating it all together. Those who are poor and less intelligent think they make money off of the EIC. They think having kids gets them more money. Unable or unwilling to do the math that shows otherwise, it is a perverse disincentive in our society. Get rid of it.

 

[spidey07]

I still notice a liberal can't define what fair share is. It's still the position of "tax more for anybody that makes more than me, damn the consequences". This is a consistent liberal belief along with the belief that it isn't your money in the first place and the government should be thanked for letting you live and keep some. Yes, this is what they truly believe.

Now, contrast that with the conservative position that everybody should keep a large portion of the money they earned and there comes a point where it is simply too much being taken.

So liberals, how much is fair and what are these "loopholes" somebody making 350k a year in W2 wages are taking advantage of? Because by then you lose all credits and almost all deductions.

 

[Lithium381]

Oops, sorry about inline responses, didn't consider that they're harder to respond to. I'll break it out this time.

I wish I could easily pull your quotes but you put them in my text. I'll do the best I can.

My mother took personal responsibility and other than the $30 a month or so from WIC, we received no handouts. I was not trying to suggest that there should be no personal responsibility, I thought it was abundantly clear that I was showing a perfect example of being poor and taking responsibility.

From what it sounds like she did take responsibility, and after seeing how myself grew up in a somewhat similar situation and not knowing your family, i respect your mother. It's hard. I will not dispute that.

As far as "It's all of us who need to contribute." I think we all agree. The question posed by the OP is what is "fair" as far as contribution. You imply that my mother, or others that are/were poor do not contribute. I already showed in a previous post that the stats ProfJohn keeps posting imply that half of americans don't pay income tax, which is not true at all. My mother paid income tax back then, as the EIC didn't really grow in size til much later. She also paid medicare and medicaid. She didn't pay into SS, as she was grandfathered into the pension plan through IRS since she worked there starting in the 70s. She paid state and local taxes. She paid taxes.

Poor people pay taxes. Even those fortunate ones who don't pay "federal income tax" pay a multitude of other taxes. At each level of government.

True, sales tax and others.... but for those living on an extreme budget, items of necessity aren't charged sales tax.... state income tax.... yes. I am solely talking about federal income taxes though... since states very widely. That is another thing to consider but we can do that in another thread possibly.

Now for some of your responses:



Who said they were less valuable? You are using an academic version of "equal" again. The burden placed on the individuals isn't equal. The dollar amount will never be equal (even with an extremely regressive tax). What is "equal"? James Madison said taxes should not be oppressive to the citizens. Wouldn't that heavy burden on the poorest be oppressive? If not, why not?

Like I said, tax only the disposable income. Please explain this academic version of "equal". I know it would affect those who have less more as i stated before, it's more of their total income, but the same on the disposable income..... You're allowed to survive, that's the only guarantee.... that's where the poverty level comes in.

It seems you are beating the same drum without reading what I am writing. When did I say anything about a free ride? I said a lower rate for the poorest citizens makes sense because the burden is higher. Like I said, my mother received virtually nothing in handouts and certainly didn't have a free ride? Why do you think I brought up her story? It wasn't to talk about free rides. Why bring it up? I sure didn't.

I'm not sure i brought up a free ride either.... if i did it was unintentional. If she makes less than the poverty level then she woudln't have been taxed at all based on my ideas.

We had no big screen TV. In fact, our TV only had one channel it would tune into (the knob didn't work) so we only watched ABC shows. Any other network didn't exists as far as our family was concerned. We had one old Buick that had plenty of problems staying running. Fortunately we had a couple nice neighbors willing to lend expertise in that area, but even then the parts would have to be put on credit cards (high interest back then) so we could get to work/school.

Why do you bring those things up? I never once mentioned luxuries. I simply explained that things were very very tough for us, and that a higher tax rate (one equal to higher incomes) would push us past the tipping point. You seem to just be ranting off an idea that has nothing to do with what I am presenting to you.

If you make enough to afford luxury items, you make enough to be taxed. that's the point i was trying to make. because once you start buying non-necessities, you now have disposable income.

Seriously, where did you see that I was implying any of the things you responded with?

some things are a direct response to you, some are other ideas that popped into my head at that moment, sorry for the confusion 😉

 

[Lithium381]

We were above the poverty line, but by just a hair. Being a hair above some arbitrary line is very similar to being below that line. Also, just because she would have paid no income taxes under Lithium's plan, doesn't mean she wasn't paying plenty of other taxes on her income. Yet if she was under Lithium's plan she would have been accused of not contributing. His subtle jab that her stupidity and laziness were the cause of our situation was not helpful.

I'm not saying lazy or anything, please don't try to take what i'm saying as a personal attack. i'm just saying if you make at or below the poverty line...... no disposable income = no tax. and as i just replied in the other post, this is only in regards to federal income tax...... obviously the states would have to have their own version of the poverty level to reflect that states demographic.

Last I saw, the EIC was around $50B annually in the budget. I tried to find a current number was wasn't able to. I am 100% behind the idea of drastically reducing the EIC or eliminating it all together. Those who are poor and less intelligent think they make money off of the EIC. They think having kids gets them more money. Unable or unwilling to do the math that shows otherwise, it is a perverse disincentive in our society. Get rid of it.

 

[QuantumPion]

12,000 / 75 = 160

80,000 / 500 = 4?????

Sorry, I should have clarified my assumptions. I forgot that liberals are mathematically challenged. Poverty level = $20,000.

 

[fantolay]

Well, the most egregious loophole for me is the carried interest provision, which allows a senior hedge fund manager who is paid a percentage of the gains his fund attains above the benchmark to only pay the capital gains tax rate of 15% on that bonus money. And it could be millions of dollars in, that, if he were an attorney or someone else getting the same amount on a W2, would be paying ordinary income rates that top out at 35% above $250k.

It is a fact that the top 400 families in this country (earning on average $144 million per year) get over 72% of their income from investments, not W2 earned income. So they are likely paying no more than 15% effective tax rate on the investment portion of their income, and for those invested in munis, a lot lower percentage. I'm not sure we should be in the business of rewarding investors so generously compared with W2 earners and would like to see the capital gains tax raised to 25-28% so the investor class of society pays a higher effective tax rate.

I work on Wall St by the way and consider myself center-right from a political perspective. But I am growing more concerned over the undeniable concentration of wealth particularly among the top 0.1% of households in this country and having too low a capital gains tax rate is partly the problem here.

Those people running hedge funds should be able to keep the money they make. Why do they have to pay more taxes? They are exceptionally wealthy, but also exceptionally successful.

 

[werepossum]

What about the Schedule C filers who reduce their taxable income to 0 or lower?

Assuming they are honestly reporting income and expenses, then reducing their taxable income to zero or lower means they actually had no net income. This is entirely possible. My father owned an auto parts store, and lots of months he was able to draw no income at all due to the economy and the competition. (Try selling, say, shock absorbers when WalMart sells them for half your cost.)

If they are not honestly reporting income and expenses, then they are tax cheats who should be prosecuted.

 

[werepossum]

We were above the poverty line, but by just a hair. Being a hair above some arbitrary line is very similar to being below that line. Also, just because she would have paid no income taxes under Lithium's plan, doesn't mean she wasn't paying plenty of other taxes on her income. Yet if she was under Lithium's plan she would have been accused of not contributing. His subtle jab that her stupidity and laziness were the cause of our situation was not helpful.

Last I saw, the EIC was around $50B annually in the budget. I tried to find a current number was wasn't able to. I am 100% behind the idea of drastically reducing the EIC or eliminating it all together. Those who are poor and less intelligent think they make money off of the EIC. They think having kids gets them more money. Unable or unwilling to do the math that shows otherwise, it is a perverse disincentive in our society. Get rid of it.

I don't think Lithium was accusing your mother specifically of being stupid or lazy. Speaking only for myself, if your mother makes just a hair above the poverty line, then my flat tax would take 20% of that hair. I don't expect anyone earning at or below the poverty line to contribute to income taxes. Anyone doing productive work is contributing to the country, and I don't think the tax code should drive people into poverty. The principle of having everyone contribute should not be extended to the point of driving people into poverty. For that matter, I have no problem deducting payroll taxes from one's raw salary before comparing that to the poverty line. Since you cannot get that money - or cannot if the EIC hadn't been morphed into a welfare program - it shouldn't count with respect to poverty. Also, states might have to supplement that; the poverty line in rural Alabama is a hell of a lot different from the same income in Manhattan or LA.

Those people running hedge funds should be able to keep the money they make. Why do they have to pay more taxes? They are exceptionally wealthy, but also exceptionally successful.

Basic fairness dictates that their income be taxed as wages. Lots of salesmen are paid purely on commission and THEY don't get this benefit. It's a loophole, pure and simple. Schumer backs it because of the benefit to New York; I can only guess that those Congress Critters outside of New York back it because of lobbying graft.

 

[actuarial]

I still notice a liberal can't define what fair share is. It's still the position of "tax more for anybody that makes more than me, damn the consequences". This is a consistent liberal belief along with the belief that it isn't your money in the first place and the government should be thanked for letting you live and keep some. Yes, this is what they truly believe.

I make well above the lowest tax bracket in Canada and am in favor of progressive taxation so no, it's not just "tax more for anybody that makes more than me". I am in favor of people making less than me paying less in taxes (as a percentage of their income)

I also don't believe in ridiculously high taxes, but if the cost of living in the US (taxes included) compared to the work put in by the rich is so high, why do they continue to live / do business there?

 

[her209]

Sorry, I should have clarified my assumptions. I forgot that liberals are mathematically challenged. Poverty level = $20,000.

Puh-lease.........

If someone is making 80K over the poverty and your poverty line is set at 20K, then that means they are making:

100K / 20.5K = approximately 4.89X (not the 4X you stated)

You were saying about mathematically challenged.....?

 

[Argo]

I also don't believe in ridiculously high taxes, but if the cost of living in the US (taxes included) compared to the work put in by the rich is so high, why do they continue to live / do business there?

I don't buy this argument, since by that same merit you can say poor people can just move to a country with lower cost of living (20k a year would make you middle class in a lot of countries)

 

[Pens1566]

I don't buy this argument, since by that same merit you can say poor people can just move to a country with lower cost of living (20k a year would make you middle class in a lot of countries)

Those working poor can afford to uproot and move?

 

[Argo]

Those working poor can afford to uproot and move?

It's an investment.

And, I'm just giving a stupid counter-proposal to a stupid argument.

 

[Svnla]

.....I'm all in favor of programs to spread more opportunity, and all opposed to programs designed to transfer wealth to make opportunity obsolete.

Don't we have plenty of programs helping the poor/spreading more opportunities since the 60's -War On Poverty, Great Society? Are the poor and certain minority groups doing better now vs. in 60's?

Let see, if you are poor and are trying hard enough, you are very much can get in college for free with Pell grant (Federal) and state help (TOPS program in Louisiana -17 on ACT and 2.0 GPA in college are all you neeeded- just to name one, I am sure other states have similar programs), scholarship if you are a minority except if you are Asian, school loan with low interest, work study, etc. so there are plenty of opportunities to improve yourself out there if you are willing to work for it.

 

[werepossum]

Don't we have plenty of programs helping the poor since the 60's -War On Poverty, Great Society? Are the poor and certain minority groups doing better now financially vs. in 60's?

Let see, if you are poor and you are trying hard enough, you are very much can get in college for free with Pell grant (Federal) and state help (TOPS program in Louisiana -2.0 GPA is all you neeeded- just to name one), scholarship if you are a minority, school loan with low interest, work study, etc. so there are plenty of opportunities out there if you are willing to work for it.

We certainly do have a LOT of programs helping the poor, but there are poor and there are poor. If you have two or even one motivated parent - which describes a lot of immigrants - then the poorest have plenty of opportunity to succeed. What we don't have are programs for those who have totally failed to learn how to learn. Many kids see little or no value for themselves in education; many drop out or even graduate as functional illiterates. No amount of money can make those kids succeed, although a small percentage have the drive to do so on their own.

There are many reasons we don't have these programs. It's almost impossible for a typical government employee to provide such motivation; it requires an outstanding and highly motivated person who can make a connection with the student. Most of us simply don't have the drive to do that, and those who do can seldom maintain it for an entire working career. Most times a school completely turns around it is due to one outstanding individual, and it seldom lasts beyond that individual. And such programs become extremely expensive as kids age, because you need extensive one-on-one time to make up for years of failing to learn. So while in theory I'd like to see them (once we get our financial house in order anyway), in practice it's almost impossible for government to make such a program without it rapidly turning into another expensive and borderline useless boondoggle.

 

[QuantumPion]

Puh-lease.........

If someone is making 80K over the poverty and your poverty line is set at 20K, then that means they are making:

100K / 20.5K = approximately 4.89X (not the 4X you stated)

You were saying about mathematically challenged.....?

Ok so we're both wrong. I forgot to subtract $20k and you forgot to add $20k. Can we agree we are both dumb? :wub:

Someone making $80k pays 15% on $60k = $9k
Someone making $20.5k pays 15% on $0.5k = $75

$80k/$20.5k = 3.9x income.
$9k/$75 = 120x tax.

Happy now?

 

[mchammer187]

A huge part of the problem is a lot of the poor have no incentive to work harder/ smarter because the way welfare/ other benefits work.

Social Programs should be structured such that they phase out gradually rather than abruptly so if you earning an extra 10K than you can keep most of it. Not earn 10K extra lose 8500 in benefits. This provides an incentive to make gradual increases in income so that you are not punished for pulling yourself just above the poverty line otherwise you are working for effectively nothing if you happen to make the dollar amount and you no longer qualify for benefits. The current system on the poor side provides disincentives to working harder.

 

[werepossum]

A huge part of the problem is a lot of the poor have no incentive to work harder/ smarter because the way welfare/ other benefits work.

Social Programs should be structured such that they phase out gradually rather than abruptly so if you earning an extra 10K than you can keep most of it. Not earn 10K extra lose 8500 in benefits. This provides an incentive to make gradual increases in income so that you are not punished for pulling yourself just above the poverty line otherwise you are working for effectively nothing if you happen to make the dollar amount and you no longer qualify for benefits. The current system on the poor side provides disincentives to working harder.

QFT

 

[iGas]

Ok so we're both wrong. I forgot to subtract $20k and you forgot to add $20k. Can we agree we are both dumb? :wub:

Someone making $80k pays 15% on $60k = $9k
Someone making $20.5k pays 15% on $0.5k = $75

$80k/$20.5k = 3.9x income.
$9k/$75 = 120x tax.

Happy now?

It is sad that American complaints about taxes when they are enjoying much lower tax rate than their Canadian neighbor.

$17,973 is what the Canadian government take for an income of $80K in BC, and we still have to pay the PST/HST/GST 7-12% sale taxes for Canadian.

Income tax get progressively worst as your income get higher, furthermore Canadian mortgage interests are not tax deductible.

And, our economy is doing much better than the US.

PS. My income tax contribution for the year of 2010 was $23K.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" -- JFK

 

[brencat]

It is sad that American complaints about taxes when they are enjoying much lower tax rate than their Canadian neighbor.

$17,973 is what the Canadian government take for an income of $80K in BC, and we still have to pay the PST/HST/GST 7-12% sale taxes for Canadian.

Income tax get progressively worst as your income get higher, furthermore Canadian mortgage interests are not tax deductible.

And, our economy is doing much better than the US.

PS. My income tax contribution for the year of 2010 was $23K.

Sorry to hear you're such a lemming that you're just willing to accept what your govt is willing to take from you...just like your demoralized colleagues in Europe. Sorry, we're not built like that here--Americans are a feisty bunch.

You have significantly lower population too. Lastly, you are running a massive housing bubble at the moment which is going to pop someday soon. Best of luck up north there mate.

 

[QuantumPion]

It is sad that American complaints about taxes when they are enjoying much lower tax rate than their Canadian neighbor.

$17,973 is what the Canadian government take for an income of $80K in BC, and we still have to pay the PST/HST/GST 7-12% sale taxes for Canadian.

Income tax get progressively worst as your income get higher, furthermore Canadian mortgage interests are not tax deductible.

And, our economy is doing much better than the US.

PS. My income tax contribution for the year of 2010 was $23K.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" -- JFK

Isn't the reason your economy is doing better than ours at the moment because you just kicked all your liberals out of the government? And you have a bunch of tea-partyers running the place now? 🙂

 

[a777pilot]

"Fair Share" to 99.9% of Americans, means that someone else pays.

Next.

 

[actuarial]

It is sad that American complaints about taxes when they are enjoying much lower tax rate than their Canadian neighbor.

$17,973 is what the Canadian government take for an income of $80K in BC, and we still have to pay the PST/HST/GST 7-12% sale taxes for Canadian.

Income tax get progressively worst as your income get higher, furthermore Canadian mortgage interests are not tax deductible.

And, our economy is doing much better than the US.

PS. My income tax contribution for the year of 2010 was $23K.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" -- JFK

If you're going to make a fair comparison, add what an average American pays in medical insurance premiums to their taxes.

Then look at the national debt per citizen.

 

[actuarial]

Sorry to hear you're such a lemming that you're just willing to accept what your govt is willing to take from you...just like your demoralized colleagues in Europe. Sorry, we're not built like that here--Americans are a feisty bunch.

You have significantly lower population too. Lastly, you are running a massive housing bubble at the moment which is going to pop someday soon. Best of luck up north there mate.

Just doing some quick numbers, our federal government is spending about 8,200 per citizen and in Ontario the provincial government is spending about 9,300 per citizen

Your federal government is spending 12,300 per citizen and on average states spend about 4,200 per citizen. (taken from here)

Looks pretty similar to me. Just because they're not collecting the taxes up front doesn't mean the payments aren't due one day. And our numbers include universal health care which would cut out about 3,700 a person (2006 numbers).