Tax Related: What does 'Fair Share' mean?

[EagleKeeper]

Fair share means that the rich who got rich by finding ingenious ways to outsource all our jobs and destroy our economy should pay a larger percentage of their income than the rest of us do.

So what about those that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to make their money inside the US.

They created jobs and may make $200-300K/yr.

You want to penalize them?

 

[jackace]

They are?

Yeah I do not see anyone looking up to people on WIC or Food Stamps where I live.

 

[Phokus]

So what about those that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to make their money inside the US.

They created jobs and may make $200-300K/yr.

You want to penalize them?

I said 'rich', not 'upper middle class'

 

[EagleKeeper]

the greedy liberals want more of your earned income. YOU earn it but they want it. Because your an achiever, you need to be punished.

You got your crayon on my screen. What a classic example of the right-wing parrot repeating the simplistic, dishonest propaganda you are fed and swallow.

You can not define what you feel a fair share is and/or why.

All you can say is that if someone makes more than you they should pay more.

It makes no difference if they work harder than you - you want to take from them rather than yourself.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

We have had strong economic growth with 89% effective tax rates on the rich before...

Edit: I do not think for a second we should return to that tax level, im just saying that cutting taxes = economic growth is BS.

regeanomics has never and will never work.

 

[Phokus]

You can not define what you feel a fair share is and/or why.

All you can say is that if someone makes more than you they should pay more.

It makes no difference if they work harder than you - you want to take from them rather than yourself.

Here, let ADAM SMITH explain why the rich should pay more. It's funny how conservatives suck off Smith, but never seem to actually get around to read his book:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[16]

 

[jackace]

All you can say is that if someone makes more than you they should pay more.
.

Basic economics tells us that if person A makes more than person B, in order for both people to have an equal burden person B will have to pay more.

 

[Acanthus]

You can not define what you feel a fair share is and/or why.

All you can say is that if someone makes more than you they should pay more.

It makes no difference if they work harder than you - you want to take from them rather than yourself.

How about we do it mathematically.

Take the average wealth gain of each quartile (or more brackets, i dont care, quartiles are usually what we evaluate by but it isn't entirely accurate once you reach the millions+ category) over say the last 10 years and adjust the tax rates accordingly.

(hint: if you did this, the top 1% would have a tax hike of over 500%, the top 5% would be up 200% and the bottom 95% would be flat or further cut.)

 

[Kappo]

How about we do it mathematically.

Take the average wealth gain of each quartile (or more brackets, i dont care, quartiles are usually what we evaluate by but it isn't entirely accurate once you reach the millions+ category) over say the last 10 years and adjust the tax rates accordingly.

(hint: if you did this, the top 1% would have a tax hike of over 500%, the top 5% would be up 200% and the bottom 95% would be flat or further cut.)

In other words : a penalty for continuing to make good decisions and no negatives for the people who make bad ones.

At what point is it that you would like bad decisions to become more profitable than good ones?

*not you, specifically, mind you. It's more an open question

 

[Patranus]

When everyone is paying an EQUAL percentage you are paying your "fair share".
After all, if you are not being treated equally how is that fair?

If you have a pizza and 4 people is it not fair to give everyone 1/4 of the pizza?

Instead we have 2 person paying for the pizza, giving those 2 people 1/10 of the pizza and the other 2 people getting 9/10 of the pizza.

 

[IGBT]

So what about those that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to make their money inside the US.

They created jobs and may make $200-300K/yr.

You want to penalize them?

liberals will rationalize that their earned income are ill gotten thus need to be punished. Liberal economics dictate that everybody becomes equally miserable.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Currently, I can easily clear 100K for my business working 6 months per year.

I can also make $200K by working 12 months per year and creating 2 jobs in the process.

But why should I put in the extra work, if you want to take it from me.
Already, I would lose $30K of that amount under normal tax rules.

I can live comfortably on $100K - to heck with creating another 2 jobs so I can get the other $70K of which people feel that I should not save for my family.

So what has been accomplished. I get to do nothing for society for 6 months (vacation/travel/put around the house until the wife kicks me out); do not contribute to the economy for those 6 months; do not create jobs that could be recycling $$ into the local economy.

The above is because people feel that I should be punished for working hard.

 

[Red Dawn]

Currently, I can easily clear 100K for my business working 6 months per year.

I can also make $200K by working 12 months per year and creating 2 jobs in the process.

But why should I put in the extra work.

To make another 70K after taxes?

 

[jackace]

When everyone is paying an EQUAL percentage you are paying your "fair share".

That would be true if everyone had an equal amount. Since we don't all have an equal amount we have to apply basic economics which tells us we need to institute some form of progressive tax structure.

 

[jackace]

Currently, I can easily clear 100K for my business working 6 months per year.

I can also make $200K by working 12 months per year and creating 2 jobs in the process.

But why should I put in the extra work, if you want to take it from me.
Already, I would lose $30K of that amount under normal tax rules.

I can live comfortably on $100K - to heck with creating another 2 jobs so I can get the other $70K of which people feel that I should not save for my family.

So what has been accomplished. I get to do nothing for society for 6 months (vacation/travel/put around the house until the wife kicks me out); do not contribute to the economy for those 6 months; do not create jobs that could be recycling $$ into the local economy.

The above is because people feel that I should be punished for working hard.

You can do what ever you want. If the reward is not worth the effort for you then go on vacation. If there is truly a need for the good or service you provide someone else will fill any gap you leave.

 

[EagleKeeper]

To make another 70K after taxes?

Not worth the effort if people want to take it away and give it to someone that does not want to work as hard.

If I chose to give it away, that is my choice. I do not want someone that is envious of my hard work telling me that I have to support someone else that is not willing to work as hard.

You have the liberals feeling that they should be able to dictate what I do with my sweat.

Yet they do not want to work as hard.

 

[nonlnear]

"Fair share" means a person can offer no compelling argument for their preferred allocation of tax burdens other than to demonize those with differing opinions. That is not to say that this is always a poor line of reasoning. After all, anyone who disagrees with my preferred allocation of tax burdens deserves no argument more dignified than to be called the spawn of Satan. Everyone knows this.

 

[MJinZ]

Currently, I can easily clear 100K for my business working 6 months per year.

I can also make $200K by working 12 months per year and creating 2 jobs in the process.

But why should I put in the extra work, if you want to take it from me.
Already, I would lose $30K of that amount under normal tax rules.

I can live comfortably on $100K - to heck with creating another 2 jobs so I can get the other $70K of which people feel that I should not save for my family.

So what has been accomplished. I get to do nothing for society for 6 months (vacation/travel/put around the house until the wife kicks me out); do not contribute to the economy for those 6 months; do not create jobs that could be recycling $$ into the local economy.

The above is because people feel that I should be punished for working hard.

For 6 months out of the year, you are a consumer shitting money back to the Economy. The Economy is like 90% driven by YOU, as a consumer.

What are you talking about? You are doing just fine.

 

[MJinZ]

Not worth the effort if people want to take it away and give it to someone that does not want to work as hard.

If I chose to give it away, that is my choice. I do not want someone that is envious of my hard work telling me that I have to support someone else that is not willing to work as hard.

You have the liberals feeling that they should be able to dictate what I do with my sweat.

Yet they do not want to work as hard.

You know what the funniest thing in the world is?

The most intelligent, richest, bad-ass people are ALL LIBERALS.

Haha, Einstein (if he was alive), Gates, and Buffet etc tells you to suck it. Your pitiful contribution to society is not critical.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You can do what ever you want. If the reward is not worth the effort for you then go on vacation. If there is truly a need for the good or service you provide someone else will fill any gap you leave.

That is true - the cost to the economy until that happens though is the hit.

It takes time to either develop and/or locate skills. Until those skills are applied to a product; there is no product and the domino impact can be felt.

 

[jackace]

Not worth the effort if people want to take it away and give it to someone that does not want to work as hard.

So go on vacation and let someone else fill any gap you leave. If your business is as profitable as you say I'm sure there will be plenty of people willing to pickup any slack you leave.

That is true - the cost to the economy until that happens though is the hit.

It takes time to either develop and/or locate skills. Until those skills are applied to a product; there is no product and the domino impact can be felt.

It's a short-term hit so it won't last long. Not to mention it will be better for the economy in the long run. It might however not be good for you in the long run because it will open the door for competition and they could drive your profit margins down.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You know what the funniest thing in the world is?

The most intelligent, richest, bad-ass people are ALL LIBERALS.

Haha, Einstein (if he was alive), Gates, and Buffet etc tells you to suck it. Your pitiful contribution to society is not critical.

No one indivigual is critical to society.
However, the impact acts as a ripple.

Gates may be rich; but what did he actually deliver to society.
He repackaged an existing product

What does Buffet actually contribute.
He manipulates money - not creating any real value to improve things.

It is the business man that is actually improving society. And you want to penalize that person.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

There 13 million hungry children in the US. Half of all adults will experence poverty by 65. Many starve, but not to death because they give up trying to fend for themselves and go for help with a social program. True US adult yearly starvation deaths are under twenty. Most deaths are children and are due to neglect.

 

[Joepublic2]

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.

Yeah I grew up poor as shit and my parents just told me flat out "you want shit you have to go out earn money for it" because they had none extra. Hated it when I was growing up but now I'm glad they didn't blow smoke up my ass about what the world is really like. A lot of people today don't understand the concept of saving money and instead borrow it at a huge interest rate (29% or wtf I check last credit card I had).

 

[soccerballtux]

OP: It means the same as "common sense laws".