Define fair share

[Belk]

we will hear that the wealthiest do not pay their fair share of taxes.

Define what a fair share is.

A higher percentage then I, a middle class man, pay in taxes.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Conservatives like the 50s. I should think they would agree that the income tax rates of the 50s amounted to "fair share."

I gave you quite a specific answer: return to the tax rates of the '50s.

My apologies, I took it as a sarcastic jab.

Explain please.

 

[Always in His Presence]

A higher percentage then I, a middle class man, pay in taxes.

They already do.

The top 1% provide 36% of revenues

In fact.

Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax

 

[Speedwell]

My apologies, I took it as a sarcastic jab.

Explain please.

In the '50s the economy was strong, the middle class growing and people still seemed able to get rich if they wanted--and the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

So I guess it was a sarcastic jab, in a way.

 

[Always in His Presence]

In the '50s the economy was strong, the middle class growing and people still seemed able to get rich if they wanted--and the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

So I guess it was a sarcastic jab, in a way.

We were also dealing with a post war economy. That had a fraction of the social programs we have today.

Are you supporting cutting back to those levels also?

 

[mark46]

So, would it be fair if the top 10% percent paid 70% of the income taxes?

Conservatives like the 50s. I should think they would agree that the income tax rates of the 50s amounted to "fair share."

 

[mark46]

Corporate income tax rates are a slightly different issue. When speaking of corporate taxes, we must address the issue of competitively of US corporations. I think that overall rates are indeed fair.

However, to be clear, I do favor an Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations, as well as removing some of the loopholes in the corporate tax law that favor hedge fund managers and real estate investors.

I never understand what is “fair share” is all about. It is true that big corporation take advantage of tax loopholes and end up paying Zero or 10-12 % of income tax, but that is not illegal. Democrat keep saying “rich don’t pay fair share” but they wouldn’t address the tax loopholes issue because demonizing rich is far easy and rally up their base then talk about tax loopholes.

 

[Speedwell]

We were also dealing with a post war economy. That had a fraction of the social programs we have today.

Are you supporting cutting back to those levels also?

We are talking about revenue rather than expenditure. Are you saying that a high top marginal tax rate is a "fair share" as long as none of the money goes to lazy poor people?

 

[Speedwell]

So, would it be fair if the top percent paid 70% of the income taxes?

That was the top marginal tax rate for many years. Obviously it did not destroy the American way of life.

 

[mark46]

That was the top marginal tax rate for many years. Obviously it did not destroy the American way of life.

I understand that you would be satisfied by high marginal rates. IMHO, this comes from a lack of understanding of what actually happens when the marginal rates are that high. The rich are simply allowed lots and lots and lots of deductions, and many ways to shelter income in small businesses and corporations of various kinds.

IMHO, we should be concerned with the rich actually paying their fair share of the revenue. This is much, much more important than there rate. That is why I ask whether the top 10% paying 70% of income taxes is enough.
==
The BOTTOM LINE is that FAIR SHARE is defined about the percentage paid of total revenue, rather than the marginal tax rate.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand that you would be satisfied by high marginal rates. IMHO, this comes from a lack of understanding of what actually happens when the marginal rates are that high. The rich are simply allowed lots and lots and lots of deductions, and many ways to shelter income in small businesses and corporations of various kinds.

IMHO, we should be concerned with the rich actually paying their fair share of the revenue. This is much, much more important than there rate. That is why I ask whether the top 10% paying 70% of income taxes is enough.
==
The BOTTOM LINE is that FAIR SHARE is defined about the percentage paid of total revenue, rather than the marginal tax rate.

I certainly agree that the question can't be settled merely by considering tax rates. And who are the "rich" anyway? People with high personal incomes? High net worth?

But I am concerned about the recent suggestion that what constitutes a "fair share" depends on how much of the money raised is used for social programs.

 

[Go Braves]

You want to lower the tax rate for the wealthiest? They pay more than 30% right now.

Nope. The Buffett Rule would apply a minimum of 30% on folks making more than 1 million a year.

 

[iluvatar5150]

IMO, this thread and discussions like it are exactly why progressives should abandon the “fair share” nomenclature and push something more concrete. “Fair share” gets some people on board but is highly subjective and crumbles under scrutiny.

 

[Speedwell]

Good one. The question then is, what is "fair share" intended to achieve? As you point out, there has to be a coherent theory of how the financial burden of the federal gov't ought to be distributed.
One hears the cat-calls, "If you tax the rich, they'll leave the country with our jobs!" or "Income inequality stifles the economy!" etc. but is there any real economic science which would inform us on the matter?

 

[Always in His Presence]

We are talking about revenue rather than expenditure. Are you saying that a high top marginal tax rate is a "fair share" as long as none of the money goes to lazy poor people?

Nope: why do you think it has changed?

Nope. The Buffett Rule would apply a minimum of 30% on folks making more than 1 million a year.

Are you familiar with the issue that many people who make over 1,000,000 a year are small business people?

Take a local fast food franchise, they make just over 1,000,000 a year. It’s viewed as personal income because of how the LLC is set up. What does it do to his business if the min tax rate is 300,000 of his business?

It sounds great as a political statement, git those mean rich people and make them pay. The reality is that it hurts small businesses.

 

[Speedwell]

Nope: why do you think it has changed?



Are you familiar with the issue that many people who make over 1,000,000 a year are small business people?

Take a local fast food franchise, they make just over 1,000,000 a year. It’s viewed as personal income because of how the LLC is set up. What does it do to his business if the min tax rate is 300,000 of his business?

It sounds great as a political statement, git those mean rich people and make them pay. The reality is that it hurts small businesses.

Why would it necessarily be $300,000? What are the marginal tax rates? Why do you think that the problem could not be addressed by appropriate legislation, or a reconfiguration of the LLC or other remedies?

 

[Speedwell]

So answer my question: who are these "mean rich people?" Those with high incomes? High net worth? Both?

 

[mark46]

Are you suggesting that a fast food franchise owner who has $300K of revenue has $300K of income? That's silly.

Nope: why do you think it has changed?



Are you familiar with the issue that many people who make over 1,000,000 a year are small business people?

Take a local fast food franchise, they make just over 1,000,000 a year. It’s viewed as personal income because of how the LLC is set up. What does it do to his business if the min tax rate is 300,000 of his business?

It sounds great as a political statement, git those mean rich people and make them pay. The reality is that it hurts small businesses.

 

[mark46]

1) Only a few want to tax people with high rates because the rich has high net worth. The issue is income.

One test is whether the boss pays a higher overall percentage in income/payroll taxes than his admin, as clearly should be the case, and often is not.

Progressive income taxation is a reasonable approach. Most want an additional higher marginal bracket or two for the rich, perhaps one at $400K a year, and another at $1M a year. Also, all payroll should be subject to payroll taxes.
===
HOW THE MONEY IS USED
How are you making this a taxation issue relating income tax rates on individuals?

I certainly agree that the question can't be settled merely by considering tax rates. And who are the "rich" anyway? People with high personal incomes? High net worth?

But I am concerned about the recent suggestion that what constitutes a "fair share" depends on how much of the money raised is used for social programs.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Are you familiar with the issue that many people who make over 1,000,000 a year are small business people?

Take a local fast food franchise, they make just over 1,000,000 a year. It’s viewed as personal income because of how the LLC is set up. What does it do to his business if the min tax rate is 300,000 of his business?

It sounds great as a political statement, git those mean rich people and make them pay. The reality is that it hurts small businesses.

That $1M is revenue, not profit. The Buffett rule taxes profits, not revenues.