IRS Numbers Shred Biden’s “Fair Share” Platitudes

iluvatar5150 said:

No, that's his definition of "fair."

What I asked for was his definition of "reasonable."

Click to expand...

The author defines, "... a reasonable equilibrium" which may certainly be considered as a synonym for fair.

iluvatar5150 said:

I don't have a clear cut method, but that doesn't matter because I never made any arguments about whether the tax code was "fair." In fact, at one point, I said that "I don't really like the 'fair share' language, either."

Click to expand...

Do you think the existing income tax code levied on the top 1% of income earners is fair, ie., 1% of taxpayers paying 45.78% of the total income taxes collected in 2021? If not fair then what other language would better reflect that fact?

iluvatar5150 said:

If you read it correctly, why did you address something entirely different?

Click to expand...

I don't think I did so. I addressed the fact that the comment was a non sequitur.

iluvatar5150 said:

You can calculate his number for the bottom 50 from the information available about the total and the top 50.

Click to expand...

So, you now agree with the author's 3.3% calculation income tax rate? "...the bottom half of American income earners paid an average of just 3.3%."

Do you still disagree with any of the facts that the author claimed regarding the IRS report?

Laodicean60 said:

I'm torn about "taxing the rich" because we are making them pay for being successful.

Click to expand...

A truism is if you want to reduce bad behaviors, tax it. We will not do well if we reduce GDP as fewer goods and services would result.

However, as Christians, most believe limiting consumption is a good thing. A federal sales tax rather than income tax would do that quite nicely.

Considering that GDP = C + I + G and I = S, where C = consumer spending, ie., consumption, I = investment, G = government spending, and S = savings, the conversion would reduce our national debt as well.

o_mlly said:

No, I'm writing quite a bit though.

Click to expand...

ok, how's this: You're not communicating anything.

o_mlly said:

However, all we see written by you is negative as to what you don't like and never a positive statement as to better solutions regarding the tax code. Whining doesn't really help. If you do get some better ideas then please post and we can continue the exchange.

Click to expand...

Because you've offered so much positive value? Why don't you take a second, go back and re-read the thread? My first entry was pointing out that the author made some bad calculations that undermined some of his claims. That's it. Your subsequent responses to me were of a similar nature, albeit generally less correct and more confused.

huh..."reasonable equalibrium" does not, necessarily mean "Fair". Fair is an objective word while including "equalibrium" connotes at bit of subjectivity at least.

And when they drain all the rich from not only their money/possessions but also their business... and half the country is unemployed because there are no jobs, and everybody wants the "to each according to their need" and nobody sees the sense in "from each according to their ability;" then we can all sit around in poverty, the most powerful 3rd world country on the planet.
The issue is that the average citizen no longer has the ability to think rationally. We have become very short-sighted, bitter, envious: but lazy. Everyone feels cheated, entitled, and mad about something or other.
God does not have to judge America. Just sit back and watch it crumble.

o_mlly said:

A truism is if you want to reduce bad behaviors, tax it. We will not do well if we reduce GDP as fewer goods and services would result.

However, as Christians, most believe limiting consumption is a good thing. A federal sales tax rather than income tax would do that quite nicely.

Considering that GDP = C + I + G and I = S, where C = consumer spending, ie., consumption, I = investment, G = government spending, and S = savings, the conversion would reduce our national debt as well.

Click to expand...

Taxing bad behavior like NY soda tax. I didn't think it was right back then but now that I know how bad sugar is for the human body, tax is welcomed.

I mentioned flat tax earlier but sales tax also might work. Something! You know it makes sense too, the rich have bigger toys like Zuckerburgs new yacht.

You haven't been to Guatemala. If your threadbare safety net made them "happy" they wouldn't be coming in droves to the US.
Families and churches are better than nothing. I guess they prove that 6 can starve as cheaply as 3. God bless the impoverished who share their few quetzals.
Americans spend more caring for their dogs and cats than many Central Americans earn in a year.

In an interesting aside, MSNBC was talking about the demographics of NYC (in relationship to Trump felony trial #1). They said Manhattan voted 87% for Biden...and said that the combination of having a college education and an income over $100,000 is considered a "Democratic" characteristic.

So if you're so worried about the "poor wealthy" paying their fair share of taxes, why do highly educated highly paid individuals vote Democratic? Perhaps a "high national quality of life" is something worth their paying for. Think about it.

Laodicean60 said:

Taxing bad behavior like NY soda tax. I didn't think it was right back then but now that I know how bad sugar is for the human body, tax is welcomed.

I mentioned flat tax earlier but sales tax also might work. Something! You know it makes sense too, the rich have bigger toys like Zuckerburgs new yacht.

Click to expand...

I agree. A graduated sales tax, where luxury items have a higher tax rate than food and other necessary items.
If you can afford a 20 million dollar yacht, you can afford the tax.

SavedByGrace3 said:

I agree. A graduated sales tax, where luxury items have a higher tax rate than food and other necessary items.
If you can afford a 20 million dollar yacht, you can afford the tax.

Click to expand...

I've toyed with the idea before and quickly realized that food, from a grocery store, should largely not be taxed. Of course, you still might add a "basic" sales tax to many prepared foods (bread might be an example, prepared dinner kits, etc.) and possibly tax high fat, high sugar items (chips, candy, cookies, soda, energy drinks) at a luxury level. Also, should we do it, we should likely make it a Value Added Tax, where the tax is included in the sales price of the item rather than applying the tax at the register and you aren't surprised when your Twinkie has some type of luxury sales tax added.

Remember, sales taxes are regressive and hurt the poor far more than the wealthy.
Bread should not be taxed as a "prepared food." Rotisserie chickens, yes. The working poor are more likely to use public transportation. They don't have occasional housekeepers or lawn workers. Their jobs have less vacations and fewer benefits. Don't tax their bread!
They are also more likely to live in food deserts with distant supermarkets, forced to shop at dollar stores.

NxNW said:

There were no such claims.

Click to expand...

raising taxes...come on...

rambot said:

huh..."reasonable equalibrium" does not, necessarily mean "Fair". Fair is an objective word while including "equalibrium" connotes at bit of subjectivity at least.

Click to expand...

e·qui·lib·ri·um
[ˌekwəˈlibrēəm, ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm]
noun

1. a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced:

fair·ness
[ˈfernəs]
noun

1. impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination

But, if you say so then the Oxford Dictionary needs to be alerted, rambot.

o_mlly said:

e·qui·lib·ri·um
[ˌekwəˈlibrēəm, ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm]
noun

1. a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced:

fair·ness
[ˈfernəs]
noun

1. impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination

But, if you say so then the Oxford Dictionary needs to be alerted, rambot.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I still don't think they mean the SAME thing. "Equal" is a synonym for fair, but equal and equalibrium are not the same thing either.

probinson said:

Biden didn't say that he wouldn't tax anyone making under $400k, but he did say that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $400k.

"Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period. Bingo."​

- Joe Biden, May 22, 2020 ​

​

President Biden’s No Tax Hike Pledge Problem

Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period. Bingo. – Joe Biden, May 22, 2020 Enacting good tax policy is hard under...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

​

Click to expand...

Which is a completely different claim from no taxes on anyone making under $400K.

dogs4thewin said:

that does not sound lke a very fun place to live

Click to expand...

People go on mission trips to make a positive difference--for meaning, not for fun.