Define fair share

[Belk]

Ok we read it. Now what?



Ask you an honest question

Top 1%. If they have so many loop holes that they pay less than you. How do they pay 36% of total taxes collected?

Because the total amount of money they pay in is higher then the other combined totals. They still pay a lower percentage of their income then I do.

 

[Belk]

If the percentages for everyone were the same that would still be the case. What would make a fair share if paying more than everyone else pays means one is not pulling one's weight?

If I pay 25% of my income and you pay 10% of your income is it fair? Even if you pay more as a total?

 

[durangodawood]

Ok we read it. Now what?...

Thats up to you, as youre the one who asked for the information.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, they are not. While they should pay a higher percentage multiple loopholes allow them to pay less of a percentage then I do.

If that is true, then the solution would be to do away with loopholes rather than to raise tax rates. Yet the proposed solution seems to be to raise tax rates and the outcry against doing away with certain deductions(loopholes) for the rich in places like NY State from those that cry that the rich are not paying their fair share was quite loud. the thing that I and probably the OP would like to know is is not anecdotal testimony of how much people pay but what constitutes a fair share. On what standard of measurement are we to judge whether a person of any income level is paying a fair share? If in a workplace of 10 workers where 3 people are doing half the work most people would argue that the other seven are not doing their fair share. Yet in funding of government that same logic does not seem to be acceptable. So what exactly constitutes a fair share of the tax revenue for the rich? For the poor? for the middle class? and why is that fair and the current percentage not?

 

[grasping the after wind]

If I pay 25% of my income and you pay 10% of your income is it fair? Even if you pay more as a total?

I would consider it to be unfair but we have a graduated income tax based upon one group paying a higher percentage than the others. Would you prefer a flat tax of 10% on everyone as I would? Additionally if someone pays 10% and exceedingly much more of the total and you pay zero on both would you consider that to be fair?

 

[Always in His Presence]

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

And how did that work out?

 

[Belk]

I would consider it to be unfair but we have a graduated income tax based upon one group paying a higher percentage than the others. Would you prefer a flat tax of 10% on everyone as I would? Additionally if someone pays 10% and exceedingly much more of the total and you pay zero on both would you consider that to be fair?

Everyone pays the exact same percentage in a graduated tax. The percentage is based on monetary range not entire income. For example if you make 50k a year and I made 100K we would both pay 10% on our first 30K, 15% on the next 20k, and then because I make more I would pay 25% on my final 50K.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And how did that work out?

How did what work out? What are you even talking about?

You made some errant claims that belied a pretty gross ignorance about how taxes in general, and the Buffett rule in particular, work. I pointed out those errors and corrected them. I haven’t advocated for the Buffett rule in this thread.

 

[Belk]

If that is true, then the solution would be to do away with loopholes rather than to raise tax rates. Yet the proposed solution seems to be to raise tax rates and the outcry against doing away with certain deductions(loopholes) for the rich in places like NY State from those that cry that the rich are not paying their fair share was quite loud. the thing that I and probably the OP would like to know is is not anecdotal testimony of how much people pay but what constitutes a fair share. On what standard of measurement are we to judge whether a person of any income level is paying a fair share? If in a workplace of 10 workers where 3 people are doing half the work most people would argue that the other seven are not doing their fair share. Yet in funding of government that same logic does not seem to be acceptable. So what exactly constitutes a fair share of the tax revenue for the rich? For the poor? for the middle class? and why is that fair and the current percentage not?

I very much agree that we should get rid of the loopholes. If we got rid of those so everyone actually paid I would consider that fair.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Here is another question:

If raising the taxes on the rich produces more revenue, why did revenues rise after the tax cuts?

 

[Always in His Presence]

How did what work out? What are you even talking about?

You made some errant claims that belied a pretty gross ignorance about how taxes in general, and the Buffett rule in particular, work. I pointed out those errors and corrected them. I haven’t advocated for the Buffett rule in this thread.

You and another are our resident experts on the Buffet Rule - how did it turn out? How much did revenues rise? Did it work? If it's effective, you have made a valid point.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You and another are our resident experts on the Buffet Rule - how did it turn out? How much did revenues rise? Did it work? If it's effective, you have made a valid point.

It was never implemented.

My point was never about its effectiveness, but rather about its proposed mechanism. You didn’t understand how it was supposed to work.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It was never implemented.

My point was never about its effectiveness, but rather about its proposed mechanism. You didn’t understand how it was supposed to work.

If it was never implemented - then you cannot say it would work - can you?

Take implementation and effectiveness out of an idea and it dies as useless. IMHO

so I will ask again:

If raising the taxes on the rich produces more revenue, why did revenues rise after the tax cuts?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Everyone pays the exact same percentage in a graduated tax. The percentage is based on monetary range not entire income. For example if you make 50k a year and I made 100K we would both pay 10% on our first 30K, 15% on the next 20k, and then because I make more I would pay 25% on my final 50K.

And what is the rationale for making the more successful pay more of a percentage and not just more in taxes for being more successful? How is that considered fair. If I do 4 hrs work and receive $10/per hr as a wage for those four hours would you consider it fair to pay a worker 8 hrs, $10/hr for the first 4 hours and $11.00 hr/ for the second 4 hours. Additionally, how is the higher tax rate which now exists still not paying enough to be a fair share? Why is social Security and Medicare/Medicaid not the most vilified of the taxes by those saying the rich don't pay their fair share as it is the only taxation that charges the the rich a smaller percentage than the rest of us? Finally, can anyone actually define the term fair share in a way that it could be applied universally?

 

[Belk]

And what is the rationale for making the more successful pay more of a percentage and not just more in taxes for being more successful? How is that considered fair.

Because as you have more money you need less and less of it for basics like food and shelter. We want people to be able to afford the basics so we tax that section of wealth less.

If I do 4 hrs work and receive $10/per hr as a wage for those four hours would you consider it fair to pay a worker 8 hrs, $10/hr for the first 4 hours and $11.00 hr/ for the second 4 hours.

Yes, I would consider that fine. They are, after all, investing more of their time. That is why we have rules that those who work over a certain amount make more money.

Additionally, how is the higher tax rate which now exists still not paying enough to be a fair share?

As I said, get rid of the loopholes so they actually pay more and I would consider it fair.

Why is social Security and Medicare/Medicaid not the most vilified of the taxes by those saying the rich don't pay their fair share as it is the only taxation that charges the the rich a smaller percentage than the rest of us?

A lot of people don't consider it fair and want the cap removed.

Finally, can anyone actually define the term fair share in a way that it could be applied universally?

Graduated taxes are applied universally.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If it was never implemented - then you cannot say it would work - can you?

Work how? I never made any claims about it one way or another.

But, yes, you could predict some things about how it would have worked, if it was similar enough to other things that have been done in the past.

If raising the taxes on the rich produces more revenue, why did revenues rise after the tax cuts?

Because the economy still grew, and math.

 

[durangodawood]

I cant believe my sensible "fair share" proposal has been completely ignored.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Because the economy still grew, and math.

I thought the economy was growing the same if not slower than the previous administration?

I cant believe my sensible "fair share" proposal has been completely ignored.

Maybe if you threw out something more than a number, we could discuss it.

 

[durangodawood]

....Maybe if you threw out something more than a number, we could discuss it.

Why cant we discuss one single number that applies to everybody?

Now thats fair. None of this "he pays this while she pays that". One figure. Fair.

(Ok, maybe the number needs to be $5000. Whatever. The point is one figure that applies evenly to all.)

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why cant we discuss one single number that applies to everybody?

Now thats fair. None of this "he pays this while she pays that". One figure. Fair.

(Ok, maybe the number needs to be $5000. Whatever. The point is one figure that applies evenly to all.)

Oh, is that what

1000

Meant?