A New Clue About What A "Fair Share" Is For Wealthy Folks

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

   I haven't heard any politician or political operative ever answer the question of what is the `fair share' of taxes that they think the wealthy should pay. No one ever says. We just get the Buffet argument. Quickly willing to define what isn't a fair share, but only a hmm . . . when asked about what is a fair share.
   
   I think a political voice that can fairly be held as an example of the Progressive voice and ideology has given us a clue.
   
   In an interview about the proposed tax increases aimed at the wealthy this Voice answered a question of whether he thought 50% was a Fair Share for the rich to pay?
   
   The answer: " . . sure, well ah it's getting closer to it*
   *(not sure about the exact order of "sure, well")
   
   Our new clue is that the Democrats' Fair Share tax rate is more than 50%.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Biden has gone on ad nauseam that households earning less than $400,000 a year wouldn’t “pay a penny more". However, The framework omits all the particular...  I have not found any form of Biden's new documented tax plan.  It's been reported the new tax plan will be in BBB. IT is clear  American's will need to wait and see what has been proposed in regard to new tax rates.
      
      "In an interview about the proposed tax increases aimed at the wealthy this Voice answered a question of whether he thought 50% was a Fair Share for the rich to pay?"
      
      Who's voice are you referring to? It appears you heard someone in an interview offer a number.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         A former mayor, presidential candidate, and current Cabinet member Pete Buttigieg. The quote came from an interview segment he did with Fox's Neil Cavuto.
         
         https://fairtax.org/articles/buttigieg- … p-tax-rate
         
         Starts at about the 8-minute mark.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            In my view, Mayor Pete was careful not to put a number on what is the wealthiest "fair share".  When asked if 50% was a fair share, he said --- at least closer to their fair share. It would appear he was saying 50% is although closer to a fair share but not enough. Being a put on the spot, was he sharing what he knows or just guessing what a fair share should be?
            
            Biden's tax plan is not really available for citizens to view. The only information is vague at best, Peppered with words such as - Biden’s plan is expected to call for an increase in corporate taxes, and individuals at higher income levels can also expect to pay more. I am sure you have heard this statement over and over ---  "nobody making under $400,000 a year will have their taxes increased.”
            
            The problem is there are no available facts on how much those that make over $400,000 will pay.  Guess we are all in for a big surprise.
            
            It's a shame we are forced to put up with this form of extreme lack of transparency.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Sharlee, the point of the OP wasn't to define an exact number that is the party's official "Fair Share" rate. I don't think they have one. Past experience says that Fair Share number will change based on the party's desired funding needs. I don't think it is some secret number hidden in the bowels of their plans that we just need some economist to dig out. My point was just that we finally have a clue—it's more than 50%.
               
               Also, I should have noted that this question isn't specific to recent legislation, it was a question of legacy. Consider how often we hear the claim that "They aren't paying their fair share," but there is never any number attached to that "fair share."
               
               I think Mayor Pete has finally given us a clue, and considering the contrary responses to this OP, no one wants to own the thought that they do think it is only fair that the wealthy are taxed at a more than 50% rate.
               
               Geez, who knew that Mayor Pete was such an outlier in the party.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, it was clear to me too---  It would appear he was saying 50% is although closer to a fair share, but just not enough. I think there is a number, a tax plan must be laid out in the bill if they want to initiate it into law. They may be tweaking it.  I think Biden said something very telling when he was running, a report was asking him a question about something (can't recall the question) he said, I will answer that after I win.
                  
                  Not sure if Mayor Pete is an outlier, I think Biden as a whole is made up of little Bernie, a tad of Elizabeth Warren, and a smudge of Ron Klain, and 90% Obama.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     That's one helluva family tree.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I wonder if we will ever know who is calling the shots.

                        replyreport
   2. 60

      Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The tax rate for the wealthy has been higher. On income over the top. What was it? 90% in the forties, for income over $200,000?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         The Wealthy don't own anything.
         That is one of the ways they stay wealthy.
         What they own is Shares of stock (Musk, Bezos, Gates)
         They control corporations, and those corporations own the cars, properties, planes that they use.
         The corporations get tax write offs for all sorts of things, the biggest corporations in the world pay almost no taxes.
         The Wealthy don't own much at all, people who own their cars, houses, etc. are the ones that pay all the taxes.

         replyreport
   3. 86

      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, one person said it so it must be the party line.
      
      Gosar just released a video where he attacks AOC, I guess all the Republicans are psychopaths by that logic.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, one person. A former mayor, presidential candidate, and current Cabinet member Pete Buttigieg. My Conservative perspective, developed through his campaign exposures, (speeches, platform, etc.), and recent administration positions is that Mayor Pete is very representative of the "party line." You must disagree with that. Oh well, I do think a Cabinet-level administration pick is indicative of the party line and position.
         
         [EDIT] Oops, that was a Neil Cavuto interview, not Bret Baier.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Cavuto asked Buttigieg this question:
            
            “What is your definition of fair share, at 50%, are they paying their fair share?”
            
            Did he ask what the administration thinks, or did he ask Buttigieg?
            
            
            Same guy actually giving the specifics on the party line:
            
            "Well, I think that an honest look at corporate America will tell you that they can do more to pay their fair share. Look, remember we are calling for a tax rate of 28%. For most of my lifetime that rate stood at 35% and American companies were perfectly competitive, extremely competitive. So if we can handle 35%, I am pretty sure we could handle 28%," Buttigieg said.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               The corporate rate is a different point. I addressed the individual tax rate he spoke to. If his corporate rate stance is the "specifics on the party line" why aren't his comments about individual taxpayer rates. ie. the wealthy, equally taken as the party line?
               
               What are you defending? Do you think I am misrepresenting his comments? Do you think he doesn't speak for the progressive Democrats in the administration, and the party when he talks about tax rates for the wealthy?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I am defending the fact that Cavuto asked Buttigieg.  You know who speaks for the administration?  Either the White House Press Secretary or the President himself.  You know who speaks for Democrats?  Whichever moderate or progressive leader they appoint for each wing of the party since it's a big tent. 
                  
                  What I am defending is the generalization across the board that you insist this is now the 'Democrat' policy.  In much the same way we should not say that because Paul Gosar or Marjorie Taylor Greene are elected Congressmen and Congresswomen that they therefore speak for the majority of Republicans.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     So, it appears you don't agree with Buttigieg; 50% is not getting close to your view of their Fair Share. And you don't think most Democrats or Progressives think 50% is getting close to their Fair Share number. And you don't think Buttigieg is representative, as a generalization, of the Democrat party.
                     
                     And, you want to take the path that the only correct view of the Democrats' Fair Share perspective is whichever an official spokesperson says. Well, that was the point of the OP—they ain't saying.
                     
                     As long as I am running on "what appears to be," it appears that you are a Democrat, (or an Independent Liberal, but Liberal you certainly appear), so what is your view of the question, is 50% getting closer to the number in your mind?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        The 50% figure seems high by about 10-15%.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           If a group of (wealthy) people form a corporation, that means that of every dollar the corporation earns in profit you feel that Uncle Sam should get 70 cents.  35% of corporate profits and at least 35% of dividends (profits) paid to the owners.
                           
                           How can you possibly justify charging one person 70% of their income while half the nation pays no net federal taxes at all?  How can that possibly be considered "fair"?

                           replyreport
                           1. 86

                              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              You do not understand.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Apparently.  I thought you indicated that taxing corporate taxes, before distribution to the owners, at a 35% rate was "fair" in your opinion.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 86

                                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Like I said, no understanding of my statement then a divergence into your own warped reality of what you mistakenly believe I meant.  Keep avoiding my posts.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, I had hoped for an explanation of what "The 50% figure seems high by about 10-15%." was intended to mean, but guess I won't get it.  I'll have to stick with my original evaluation, that it means that a "fair" taxation of corporations is 35%-40%.  That is, after all, about all it could refer to given that it was a response to a direct question of what a fair corporate tax would be.

                                       report
                                       1. 86

                                          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                          You still do not understand.  Nor do you understand how to avoid my posts.

                                          report
            2. 95

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Isn't that exactly what the OP said?  That there is never an answer, just "well we can handle 28% (or whatever the current attempt to grab more is), without ever stating what is "fair"?
               
               Personally, I've always wondered just how "fair" it can possibly be when every dollar a corporation earns is taxed twice - once when the corporation earns it and once again when it is transferred to the owners of that corporation.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I also think ta corporate tax is double taxation. And if you carry it a step further, ie. our `death' taxes, that same money is taxed three times.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     You're right - hadn't thought about that one.  The never ending greed of politicians for what people have earned.

                     replyreport
            3. 89

               GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Let's stick to the point of the OP—the Democrats' perspective of what a Fair Share is. The corporate side of those tax increases is a different matter.
               
               Are you saying Buttigieg's perspective is not that of the Democrats, as a whole? You are going to pull something with the stretch you are trying to make.
               
               GA

               replyreport
2. 90

   IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

   This is from April.
   
   Biden’s Tax Plan: What’s Enacted, What’s Proposed

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hmm . . . I think I will wait for the November one. I have heard that a lot has changed since April.
      
      GA

      replyreport