Tax Related: What does 'Fair Share' mean?

[Bateluer]

Hear this often regarding taxes. Everyone has to pay their fair share, whether rich or poor. Everyone likes to gang up on the 'rich' and the HENRY's and claim they need to pay their fair share. But what does fair share mean?

Nearly half my income goes to just the taxes recorded on my W2, that doesn't count things like sales taxes and government administrative fees and the like. I have no children in public schools, so would paying my fair share include paying taxes for the public school system? I pay lots of money into the ponzi Social Security scam, money that I'll never see again. Money that would be far better served if I was allowed to invest the money myself, both for my own retirement and for the over all health of the economy. Does paying my fair share mean paying the retirement salaries of individuals who failed to save any money for retirement, who partied like a grasshopper through their youth and adult years?

My federal tax dollars go to support roads and highways in other states, states that I've never been to and never drive on, its fair that I pay to maintain their highways? What about supporting police, fire, and emergency services? My tax dollars support them, and yet, if you use them, often you'll still get billed thousands of dollars. By the fire department that watched your home burn to the ground. By the police that responded to a 911 call you placed.

The rich? They generate the overwhelming percentage of the income tax revenue in the US, and yet, I'd wager, they are also the least draining on public services. Some how, I don't think Bill Gates is going to retire on Social Security payments or send any of his 3 children to public schools. We have public officials, federal senators, with salaries well over 250K per year who earn millions in book deals and speaking engagements. These same individuals make news on a regular basis for tax dodging, Senator Kerry, Secretary Geither, to name a few. People scream and holler that everyone needs to pay their fair share.

So, I ask you, what is fair share? How do you classify it? Is it the same percentage for every tax payer, regardless of income? IE, I pay 50% of my income, John Kerry pays 50% of his, Bill Gates pays 50% of his, etc. Based on the level of use of public services? A individual's ability to pay? What is 'Fair Share'?

 

[gingermeggs]

So tell me what it is you do for your income?
If the rich have all the -surplus- money, how else do you pay for services?
Remove them all?
Is it fair that others starve to preserve the wealth of high income earners?
The real issue isn't the poor, it's what is making them poor that's the problem- corporate control of government and the monetary system- whatever the fuck the political parties name is!
Open your eye's and stop hitting the soft targets that can't hit back, don't be so gutless!

 

[Bateluer]

So tell me what it is you do for your income?

My occupation has no bearing on this discussion. Suffice to say, I work in the private sector.

 

[khon]

Peaceful wealth is somewhat like a house of cards, you can buildit to impressive heights, but the whole thing will come tumbling down if you remove just a few cards at the bottom.

What I mean by that is that you may not see many direct benefits from the government, but your success could not have happened without the underlying structure of the society you live in.

So is it fair that you pay more if you're nearer the top ? Yes, I think it is.

 

[gingermeggs]

My occupation has no bearing on this discussion. Suffice to say, I work in the private sector.

So I guess that means your in the finance industry!
What about you tell us your height and weight then?

 

[Bateluer]

So I guess that means your in the finance industry!
What about you tell us your height and weight then?

I work in IT. Are you saying a blue collar(electrician) should pay differently than a white collar worker(office assistant)?

So is it fair that you pay more if you're nearer the top ? Yes, I think it is.

And yet the more money the government, at all levels, takes from the wealthy, the more the middle class shrinks and the fewer jobs there are. Obviously, a lot of wealthy people, in both the private and public sectors, take advantage of tax loopholes and foreign tax havens. Such loophole should be closed and those foreign havens eliminated, just a corporation that outsources its labor to India should be financially 'compensated' to make hiring local workers equal in cost to over seas labor.

The trickle down economic theory works, but only when the wealthy keep their money in the US, on US goods and services. If they send it overseas, in foreign labor or in tax havens, the theory breaks apart. But,when its kept in the US, jobs are created and money gets moved through the economic engine.

 

[gingermeggs]

I work in IT. Are you saying a blue collar(electrician) should pay differently than a white collar worker(office assistant)?



And yet the more money the government, at all levels, takes from the wealthy, the more the middle class shrinks and the fewer jobs there are. Obviously, a lot of wealthy people, in both the private and public sectors, take advantage of tax loopholes and foreign tax havens. Such loophole should be closed and those foreign havens eliminated, just a corporation that outsources its labor to India should be financially 'compensated' to make hiring local workers equal in cost to over seas labor.

The trickle down economic theory works, but only when the wealthy keep their money in the US, on US goods and services. If they send it overseas, in foreign labor or in tax havens, the theory breaks apart. But,when its kept in the US, jobs are created and money gets moved through the economic engine.

So your morbidly obese and run the computer systems for goldman sachs?

Depends on what each of them earns! (do you think secretaries are white collar?)

How about a code of ethics being apart of a world trade agreement, this would kill many birds with the same rock!

A regulatory code of ethics that has human rights, environment and social welfare as it's foundation. Countries which don't come up to the standard are embargoed by the member nations.....like a world common wealth program.

I used a dirty word *social!

 

[khon]

And yet the more money the government, at all levels, takes from the wealthy, the more the middle class shrinks and the fewer jobs there are.

Not even remotely true.

Republicans have been trying to push that line of BS for 30 years now, and it's only ever accomplished the opposite of what they claim.

 

[boomerang]

So your morbidly obese and run the computer systems for goldman sachs?

Depends on what each of them earns! (do you think secretaries are white collar?)

How about a code of ethics being apart of a world trade agreement, this would kill many birds with the same rock!

A regulatory code of ethics that has human rights, environment and social welfare as it's foundation. Countries which don't come up to the standard are embargoed by the member nations.....like a world common wealth program.

I used a dirty word *social!

Yours has been nothing but a personal attack in this thread. Bateluer quit answering him. He's a raving progressive who wants everyone else to pay for all the horse shit programs he wants. People are starving. Give me a fucking break! Show me some stats on people who starved to death in the U.S.

And that's your answer Bateluer. 'Fair share' is getting everyone else to pay while you avoid paying. It's the guilt trip laid at the feet of people who work and contribute to society by those that like to get up when the sun is warm and high in the sky. Don't fall for it. You're paying too much right now because the majority of it is wasted.

gingermeggs is not a citizen of the U.S. based on his posts I've read over time. He has no problems telling us how we should be doing things because the impact on him is zero.

 

[Double Trouble]

Not even remotely true.

Republicans have been trying to push that line of BS for 30 years now, and it's only ever accomplished the opposite of what they claim.

Wrong. The government (at all levels combined) has been taking more and more from the people as it expands to become an ever increasing portion of the national GDP. At the same time, the middle class is shrinking and the super wealthy class is growing at a faster pace.

In other words, the policies of taxing more and government wealth redistribution have had the opposite effect that what was touted. As I mentioned in Craig's thread, the answer is a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code to simplify it and eliminate the loopholes and structures for escaping taxation.

 

[gingermeggs]

Yours has been nothing but a personal attack in this thread. Bateluer quit answering him. He's a raving progressive who wants everyone else to pay for all the horse shit programs he wants. People are starving. Give me a fucking break! Show me some stats on people who starved to death in the U.S.

And that's your answer Bateluer. 'Fair share' is getting everyone else to pay while you avoid paying. It's the guilt trip laid at the feet of people who work and contribute to society by those that like to get up when the sun is warm and high in the sky. Don't fall for it. You're paying too much right now because the majority of it is wasted.

gingermeggs is not a citizen of the U.S. based on his posts I've read over time. He has no problems telling us how we should be doing things because the impact on him is zero.

Your master is my master too, the only difference is I hate the cunts.....you go along with their story. Not all contributions are in dollars.
What I want is for good people to stop paying for the excesses of the few, call that a guilt trip if you will, it's not falling of anything, it's getting up off your knees and standing with some truth in your heart.
Yes for a few, progression for the majority of human beings would be the end of the high life, high time to take their hit!

 

[mwtgg]

It means paying more than I do because you can.

 

[khon]

Wrong. The government (at all levels combined) has been taking more and more from the people as it expands to become an ever increasing portion of the national GDP. At the same time, the middle class is shrinking and the super wealthy class is growing at a faster pace.

In other words, the policies of taxing more and government wealth redistribution have had the opposite effect that what was touted. As I mentioned in Craig's thread, the answer is a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code to simplify it and eliminate the loopholes and structures for escaping taxation.

Too bad the facts prove you wrong. Marginal tax rates for the top brackets have been falling since the 60s, and 2009 had the lowest total taxation (as a % of GDP) since before WW2.

 

[gingermeggs]

Wrong. The government (at all levels combined) has been taking more and more from the people as it expands to become an ever increasing portion of the national GDP. At the same time, the middle class is shrinking and the super wealthy class is growing at a faster pace.

In other words, the policies of taxing more and government wealth redistribution have had the opposite effect that what was touted. As I mentioned in Craig's thread, the answer is a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code to simplify it and eliminate the loopholes and structures for escaping taxation.

Revolution will be the only out of this current corporatist regime, hopefully by a change in consumers spending ethics- stop giving them money and they'll be in crisis fast.
We've gone over this many times'
Buy things from local producers not retailers, use cash not credit. Avoid insurance if legally possible and use a credit union for banking. Don't invest in shares!
Awareness in the general population can change this charade!
Principles aren't taxable!
Self-esteem and diet are fundamental part of this too.

 

[Kappo]

Honestly, there is a fix to both sides of the equation. My upper-middle income could be taxed less AND there could be all the shitty social programs still running. The government overpays for EVERYTHING. Usually to the tune of 30-50% more than something is worth.

The reason that they do is because it's not "their" money and there is an endless supply of it. If I did that in the private sector, I would get fired.

If the government would be frugal, save to do the projects that they wanted and spend within their current means most people would be happy to see the lower tax rates AND social welfare programs.

But currently, we have a punitive tax system. The more you produce or the better decisions you make, the more you are penalized. This is pretty much in line with the perpetual power grab that all politicians are guilty of. The more of your money they have control of, the more they can tell you what to do.

It seems that they have forgotten that it isn't their job to provide you happiness, but to give you a framework so that you can provide yourself happiness. What do you think is more useful to a person in the long term : Giving someone the bare minimum so that he never has that hunger to do better and keep him stuck at the bottom his whole life, or telling him that he better make do with what he has and needs to work hard to make a far better life than what someone just gave him?

 

[gingermeggs]

It means paying more than I do because you can.

Because you've been writing your own pay check!
If only I alone could do that, but it's going to take a lot of awaking of the majority of people.
What was the purpose of money again?

 

[gingermeggs]

Honestly, there is a fix to both sides of the equation. My upper-middle income could be taxed less AND there could be all the shitty social programs still running. The government overpays for EVERYTHING. Usually to the tune of 30-50% more than something is worth.

The reason that they do is because it's not "their" money and there is an endless supply of it. If I did that in the private sector, I would get fired.

If the government would be frugal, save to do the projects that they wanted and spend within their current means most people would be happy to see the lower tax rates AND social welfare programs.

But currently, we have a punitive tax system. The more you produce or the better decisions you make, the more you are penalized. This is pretty much in line with the perpetual power grab that all politicians are guilty of. The more of your money they have control of, the more they can tell you what to do.

It seems that they have forgotten that it isn't their job to provide you happiness, but to give you a framework so that you can provide yourself happiness. What do you think is more useful to a person in the long term : Giving someone the bare minimum so that he never has that hunger to do better and keep him stuck at the bottom his whole life, or telling him that he better make do with what he has and needs to work hard to make a far better life than what someone just gave him?

Who are they paying the money to is the main issue!
It's corruption man, don't you see it, but being upper middle class the devil you know ain't as scary as the devil you don't
- why aren't you happy if your well off financially, are you addicted to your next toy hit?
You want a summer holiday house for your vacation?
Or is it that you see others not doing so well as you and it causes you discomfort, because they have more happiness in their merger lives!

It's not fair man, you should be able to buy a sense of spirit, principles, happiness and love!
When your living in a sham, you can never be whole of heart.

 

[mwtgg]

Because you've been writing your own pay check!
If only I alone could do that, but it's going to take a lot of awaking of the majority of people.
What was the purpose of money again?

What are you talking about?

 

[gingermeggs]

What are you talking about?

Your wired up hard into the sham, a capacitor.
The fake can never be fair.

What is the purpose of currency/money, can you tell me?

 

[Red Dawn]

What was the tax rate the upper 3% were paying in the late 50's/early 60's? I heard something like 90%. If true then that was outlandish.

 

[khon]

What was the tax rate the upper 3% were paying in the late 50's/early 60's? I heard something like 90%. If true then that was outlandish.

The top bracket was above 70% from 1936-1981, above 80% from 1940-1963, and peaked at 94% in 1945.

 

[MotF Bane]

Wrong. The government (at all levels combined) has been taking more and more from the people as it expands to become an ever increasing portion of the national GDP. At the same time, the middle class is shrinking and the super wealthy class is growing at a faster pace.

In other words, the policies of taxing more and government wealth redistribution have had the opposite effect that what was touted. As I mentioned in Craig's thread, the answer is a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code to simplify it and eliminate the loopholes and structures for escaping taxation.

This.

 

[gingermeggs]

What was the tax rate the upper 3% were paying in the late 50's/early 60's? I heard something like 90%. If true then that was outlandish.

All requests are reasonable if own a lot and you stand to lose everything as the alternative.

 

[gingermeggs]

This.

Won't change in an election.

 

[Kappo]

Who are they paying the money to is the main issue!
It's corruption man, don't you see it, but being upper middle class the devil you know ain't as scary as the devil you don't
- why aren't you happy if your well off financially, are you addicted to your next toy hit?
You want a summer holiday house for your vacation?
Or is it that you see others not doing so well as you and it causes you discomfort, because they have more happiness in their merger lives!

It's not fair man, you should be able to buy a sense of spirit, principles, happiness and love!
When your living in a sham, you can never be whole of heart.

Having been on both sides of the fence (my mom had 3-4 jobs at a time when I grew up and we were still mostly below poverty), I don't really care what people make. There is always opportunity to do better.

I was raised with the mentality that if I wanted something I had to earn it and work for it. So I did (and still do). Why should someone else be different? I'm willing to bet I donate more money and time to causes in a year than you have your entire life. I don't expect everyone to. I do it because I like it.

What happens when everyone just wants the free, bare minimum ride? No one is producing anything and nothing happens. Your version of utopia is not human nature. If you think for one second you are going to change thousands of years of human nature with a forum post, go back to your bong and food service job and start planning.

You really think that if someone works really hard and does things better than anyone else, that they should be penalized? That's more of a rhetorical question for you to answer for yourself, not to explain yourself to me.

Would I rather give my money to the poor instead of things like roads and schools? No. Would I rather give my money to the poor instead of some crapbag politician who wants to put a fountain in the middle of city hall? Yes.